Just maybe, economic activity and financial capital could align itself with the planetary demands!
A collection of items crossed my screen in the last few days that reinforced the interconnectedness of all life on Planet Earth.
First I saw an item on the BBC News website that demonstrated that climate change, global warming, or however one wants to describe man’s relationship with the planet, is not some crazy, fuzzy idea of a few liberal environmentalists. This was a report of the significant drop in global wheat yields.
The report was entitled, Climate shifts ‘hit global wheat yields’ and was written by Mark Kinver, Science and environment reporter, BBC News. Here’s a taste of what was written.
Shifts in the climate over the past three decades have been linked to a 5.5% decline in global wheat production, a study has suggested.
A team of US scientists assessed the impact of changes to rainfall and temperature on four major food crops: wheat, rice, corn and soybeans.
Climate trends in some countries were big enough to wipe out gains from other factors, such as technology, they said.
Professor David Lobell from Stanford University went on to say,
“In particular, you have to assume how non-linear the response will be and how different the crops of tomorrow will be from the crops of today,” he said.
He added that the study focused on historical data in order to strengthen confidence in the existing projections.
“I think it is very clear that climate is not the predominant driver of change over long periods of time in crop production.
“Across the board, you see crop yields going up over the past 30 years, but the question is how much is climate modified (and) what would have happened if the climate was not changing.
“In some countries, we see that climate has only affected things by a few percent. In other countries, we see that yields would have been rising twice as fast.
“On a global average, we see that wheat production would be about 5% higher if we had not seen the warming since 1980. We see about the same for maize or corn.
“Yet for rice and soybean, we actually find that production is about the same as if climate had not been trending.”
Sort of moving on, most people, when they stop and think about it, must realise that 6.9 billion people living (i.e. depending) on Planet Earth have to be causing changes. The Inside Science News Service published a reminder from last December of a calculation that,
By Mary Caperton Morton, ISNS Contributor
Inside Science News Service
STRASBURG, Pa. — Next month, representatives from more than 190 nations will gather in Japan at the Nagoya Biodiversity Summit to develop a global strategy for staunching habitat and biodiversity loss around the world.
The statistics are sobering: Every 20 minutes a species goes extinct. At that rate — estimated to be a thousand times faster than pre-human impact background levels – in 300 years, half of all living species of mammals, birds, fish, reptiles and plants will be gone. [My italics]
This alarming decline has not gone unnoticed. In 1992, the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity — or CBD — one of the most widely ratified treaties in the world, established lofty conservation goals to be met by 2010. But since then the decline in biodiversity has not slowed. Nearly 16,000 species are still listed as threatened, with more than 200 of them described as “possibly extinct.”
What we need, some might ask, is for big business to get behind and push! Perhaps not so far fetched.
Last October, the British Guardian newspaper, published a very telling reminder that nothing ever in life stays the same.
A controlled burn of oil from the Deepwater Horizon well in the Gulf of Mexico. The report cites the Gulf of Mexico oil spill as an extreme example of the potential impact of inadequate environmental controls. Photograph: Ann Heisenfelt/EPA
The financial risks posed by the loss of species and ecosystems have risen sharply and are becoming a greater concern for businesses than international terrorism, according to a United Nations report released today.
From over-depletion of fish stocks and soil degradation caused by agricultural chemicals to water shortages and mining pollution, the paper – commissioned by the UN Environment Programme and partners – said the likelihood has climbed sharply that declines in biodiversity would have a “severe” $10bn (£6bn) to $50bn impact on business.
With the European Union and other regions increasingly holding companies liable for impacts on ecosystem services, it suggests banks, investors and insurance companies are starting to calculate the losses that could arise from diminishing supplies, tightened conservationcontrols and the reputational damage caused by involvement in an unsound project.
Achim Steiner, UN under-secretary general and Unep executive director, said: “The kinds of emerging concerns and rising perception of risks underlines a fundamental sea change in the way some financial institutions, alongside natural resource-dependent companies, are now starting to glimpse and to factor in the economic importance of biodiversity and ecosystems”.
The briefing paper cites the 55% crash of BP’s share price and the decline of its credit rating in the wake of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill as an extreme example of the potential impact of inadequate environmental controls.
The United Nations Environment Programme report may be found here. The cover page says this,
“ As the global financial sector recovers and moves into the post financial crisis era,
there is one notion that crystallises before our eyes more acutely than ever: we need
to understand systemic risk in a much more holistic way. This CEO Briefing underscores
the critical natural capital that underpins our economic activity and financial capital.” Richard Burrett, Partner in Earth Capital Partners Co-Chair, UNEP Finance Initiative
Well put!
As I wrote at the very start, just maybe, economic activity and financial capital could align itself with the planetary demands!
Sad to read the loss of a giant of the UK’s hauliers.
I have no personal knowledge or experience of Eddie Stobart’s haulage firm. But as someone who for many years operated as a salesman in the UK, with the associated high annual car mileages, seeing Eddie Stobart trucks on the road was a familiar experience.
This week’s copy of The Economist carried an obituary telling of the death, at the young age of 56, of Edward Stobart.
A Stobart truck, always spotlessly clean.
The UK Independent newspaper carried a report of Eddie’s death on the 31st March, as well as the BBC. Here’s a flavour of the Independent’s report.
Edward Stobart, the trucking legend who brought the phenomenon of “Stobart spotting” to Britain’s motorways, has died from heart problems at the age of 56.
Mr Stobart turned his father Eddie’s agricultural seeds business into a multimillion-pound haulage empire and quirk of British culture.
“Edward built Eddie Stobart into the iconic brand and business we know today,” his brother William Stobart, who now runs the business, told staff yesterday with “great sadness and regret”.
Edward Stobart took over the business in the late 1960s and within a decade spotting the green-and-red livery of Eddie Stobart lorries had become a favourite way to while away long journeys.
As a sign of the company’s cult appeal, Twitter was flooded with condolences and messages of appreciation within minutes of the announcement of Mr Stobart’s death in hospital in Coventry
Income inequality, when it becomes excessive, is very corrosive to a society.
This is clearly a complex subject because one man’s excess is another man’s just reward for building a successful business that employs his fellow citizens.
Nonetheless, I do want to touch on this sensitive area because, to my mind, they are connected with the tragic story that is the point of this article.
This document presents details on the wealth and income distributions in the United States, and explains how we use these two distributions as power indicators.
Some of the information may come as a surprise to many people. In fact, I know it will be a surprise and then some, because of a recent study (Norton & Ariely, 2010) showing that most Americans (high income or low income, female or male, young or old, Republican or Democrat) have no idea just how concentrated the wealth distribution actually is.
Later on, Prof. Domhoff writes:
The Wealth Distribution
In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one’s home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2010).
That table and the whole article is powerful and a well-worth reading. Read it here.
Stay with me a little longer. Here’s an extract from an article from Nicholos Kristof of the New York Times written in November last year.
Nicholas Kristof
In my reporting, I regularly travel to banana republics notorious for their inequality. In some of these plutocracies, the richest 1 percent of the population gobbles up 20 percent of the national pie.
But guess what? You no longer need to travel to distant and dangerous countries to observe such rapacious inequality. We now have it right here at home — and in the aftermath of Tuesday’s election, it may get worse.
The richest 1 percent of Americans now take home almost 24 percent of income, up from almost 9 percent in 1976. As Timothy Noah of Slate noted in an excellent series on inequality, the United States now arguably has a more unequal distribution of wealth than traditional banana republics like Nicaragua, Venezuela and Guyana.
C.E.O.’s of the largest American companies earned an average of 42 times as much as the average worker in 1980, but 531 times as much in 2001. Perhaps the most astounding statistic is this: From 1980 to 2005, more than four-fifths of the total increase in American incomes went to the richest 1 percent.
By the way, Kristof has his own blog site and added material from him about this topic and readers’ comments are here.
Now to the core of this article on Learning from Dogs which, I passionately believe, is closely tied in to the background theme already expressed here. It’s from the blogsite Corrente and, once again, I am indebted to Naked Capitalism for having it in a recent set of links.
It concerns Jack, his family and their house.
The House that Jack’s Bank Took
Jack was a friendly man, who always had a pleasant word and a smile and handshake for everyone. The men hung with him at barbeques and discussed sports. He was strong, had a belly, and always wore a baseball cap. He was married to his high school sweetheart, Mary. He was good to his 4 kids and took care of his oldest child when he had a breakdown in his early twenties. He went to all school and family events and encouraged his children in their dreams. He took care of the family needs and finances. He was a small business owner and had invented his product, which a short while ago became outmoded. He always decorated the house with lots of Christmas decorations and candles. They are still up. He lost his house to foreclosure and the family was given 3 days to move out.
He drove into the deep woods and drank poison to make sure he was dead. I knew him. My family knew him; he lived within walking distance of one of us. At his funeral his childhood sweetheart and their children told a lot of Jack stories. The family did their best to resurrect him to our eyes. One of his kids sang and the eldest read a poem he’d written. Mary said she didn’t know what she was going to do and that she would now have to rely on those from town sitting in the packed chapel pews. There are other houses nearby that haven’t been foreclosed on but Jack’s house was nice and had a good view. The bank has now given Mary 3 weeks to move out.
It was written on the 15th February, 2011; you can read it here. Click on the link and read some of the comments expressed – very powerful.
Wish I could think of something apt to say but I can’t. All I can feel is great sadness and a horrible feeling in the pit of my stomach that this ‘Jack’ story is being echoed in many other places.
This opened my eyes; thought I would share it with you.
I know that many of the several hundred readers of Learning from Dogs are not in the USA. But many are. Hence me deciding, after mulling it over, to publish in full the contents of an email that came in a short while ago from the organisation Change.
Here’s that email.
Dear Paul,
Valentine’s Day, which accounts for 40% of fresh flower sales annually, is fast approaching.
Not always a sweet smell.
If you’re planning to order a bouquet from 1-800-Flowers — the world’s largest florist — you should know where most of those flowers really come from.
At flower farms in Ecuador and Colombia — the countries that export the most to the U.S. — two-thirds of the workers are women. These women are routinely subjected to harassment and even rape from their male supervisors. They suffer eye infections and miscarriages from consistent contact with dangerous pesticides.
In the weeks leading up to Valentine’s Day and Mother’s Day, they’re routinely forced to work 80-hour weeks with no overtime pay. Attempts to form a union are met with opposition by police and armed forces.
Many retailers — such as Whole Foods and Stop & Shop — have taken the important first step of offering Fair Trade flowers to consumers who want no part of these abuses. Fair Trade certified farms must adhere to strict standards for workers’ rights, which prevents the abuses described above.
1-800-Flowers is the largest florist in the world. Yet they offer no Fair Trade flowers at all.
1-800-Flowers uses a certifying agency called Florverde, which ensures that its flower farms measure up to certain environmental standards — this is a good thing. But Florverde has almost no labor standards: A farm can be certified even if it uses forced labor.Indeed, Florverde is owned by the Association of Colombian Flower Exporters, so it has a financial incentive to keep wages low and suppress workers’ rights.
This is the week before Valentine’s Day — more people will purchase flowers during the next seven days than any other week this year. This is our best opportunity to demand a promise from 1-800-Flowers to join its competitors in offering Fair Trade flowers. So after you sign the petition, please share this email widely and post on Facebook — do everything you can topressure 1-800-Flowers to show a little respect for the women who toil in unbearable circumstances. The women without whom they’d have no flowers to sell.
Click the link below to tell 1-800-Flowers to make a promise this Valentine’s Day to sell Fair Trade flowers:
Since this campaign began, the company has emailed to tell us that it will post more information on its website about the farms that supply their flowers. But this is a far cry from selling fair trade products — and we have much more to do to make sure workers are protected. This is the week to do it.
Thanks for taking action,
Patrick and the Change.org team
If you feel so minded to sign the petition, which can be done by people outside the USA, then that may be done here.
A guest post from Dr John W Lewis. John and I have known each other for some years now, both of us sharing a group aircraft that was based in Exeter, SW England. His areas of interest and competence are described here. But these days when John and I chat about the world in general and nothing in particular we often come back to the topic of innovation. So bear that in mind as John muses on the rather gloomy nature of a recent post on Learning from Dogs.
John writes:
John Lewis
Having read the recent Post, Group Human Insanity, my first instinct is that I have nothing particular worthwhile to say that has not been said before. But, of course, the time to apply minds is exactly when the answers don’t readily come to mind, so I will continue!
In a way, it’s probably a case of applying the sentiment on the old wartime poster, “Keep calm and carry on!” or as Winston Churchill said, “I’f you’re going through hell, keep going!”.
That doesn’t mean that we don’t need to change, because we do. It doesn’t mean that we don’t need to put a lot more effort into things that matter, because we do. But, as has been said before, “you can’t connect the dots looking forward, only looking backwards”. In other words, “it is very difficult to make predictions, especially about the future”.
Reading about this kind of thing in books, such as “Freakonomics” or “Drive” or “Switch” suggests that we don’t really understand the mechanism by which behavioural changes happen in populations, although some of the discoveries of Everett Rogers about the diffusion of innovations is relevant here. To refer to another book, there is probably going to be a lot of “Who moved my cheese?” hemming and hawing behaviour going on too.
All we really know is that when the environment (in the most general sense) is changing rapidly, populations are much better off if they are diverse in their characteristics and behaviour; also I believe (but am not sure) that it’s true to say that increased communication assists populations in adapting to changes in the environment.
So the most important thing to do is to let lots of different people do lots of different things in search of ways forward. If you like, we need to split up (within the multidimensional behavioural space in which we operate) into smaller groups to dodge the big boulders.
We need to communicate lots of information and lots of ways of interpreting and verifying not only the information itself, but also the operational implications of that information (which may be very different things). Hopefully this will reduce (but it will never eliminate) instances of mass movements (as in stampedes) based on partial information which misdirect substantial resources into activities that turn out to be dead ends.
If we don’t believe that there are any viable ways forward, then we might as well give up and just enjoy what’s left of the good times!
But if there are ways forward, then the way to find them is to have lots of people scouting ahead on lots of fronts and passing information around so that we maximise the chances of finding those ways forward, and having lots of other people striving to find ways to make use of that information and testing out those ways forward.
Whether this is all obvious, or not, I don’t know; but it probably is. One thing we do know is that telling people what to do is emphatically not going to work! Just look at some of the stories on the Breaking The Mould website.
Instead, we are better off when people are asking questions, gathering information and passing it around. I believe that if these behaviours are adopted in a population, as a result of ‘external’ pressures building up, then changes and innovations will inevitably occur, and this is about the best that we can do! Fortunately, I think that is what tends to happen anyway.
So, in a sense, as I referred to above: “Keep calm and carry on” (By the way, a Google search on that phrase unearths a variety of interesting stuff and variations such as “Get excited and make stuff”)
I came across John Maudlin’s web site some time ago and ended up subscribing to one of his Blogs, Outside the Box. To be frank, much of what John writes is a little bit too technical for me but this item did catch my eye to the extent that I read the item in full and was intrigued by it.
The article was called, “Apple, Google, NewsCorp and the Future of Content” You can read it directly here. But just to whet your appetite, here’s a small extract of what is primarily an interview with Michael Whalen:
In this issue of The Institutional Risk Analyst, we speak to Michael Whalen, [Emmy] award winning composer and new media observer about the outlook for the business of creating and delivering content. Since graduating from Berklee College of Music, Michael has taught a business for music class that has saved thousands of young artists from making terrible mistakes with content and other contractual rights. Think Frank Zappa and Warner Brothers. And yes, Michael is IRA co-founder Chris Whalen’s younger brother.
and later …
Whalen: Frankly, I think we’re going back to the 19th century in terms of the “status” of artists. They’ll be figureheads. Imagine: like Paris or Vienna of the 1900s, we’ll have wealthy patrons and small clutches of people who support the art of “real” artists. In this environment, the work we will try to sell is simply a loss leader and an inducement for us to perform or create a “custom” song, TV show or film… Yup, it’s all here now… What will be really interesting is what happens next… I am not pretending to be the “Grim Reaper” but I think the record business, the film studio system and the television networks are over as we think we know them. I think there is a new business emerging in gathering creative investment, content and creative marketing…. It will be in a structure that’s more akin to a stock market than the traditional structure we’ve seen for artistic and creative content and the platform for it will be the digital ocean we have already discussed. Based on the “buzz”, there will be a “futures” market and the idea is commoditized and funded in days – not months or years. For decades, most record companies and networks have been little more than funding sources for artists – now the truly visionary artist won’t even need these ancient businesses – the market itself will generate everything it needs to create content efficiently. It’s a little overwhelming the change that is here now vs. five years ago and that will be coming in torrents in the next few years. Amazing.
Read the full interview here – I promise you won’t regret it.
Thanks to Mike T who I have known for a few years now. Mike is an air traffic controller as well as being a keen private pilot so if there is one person who can see through the telescope from both ends, it’s this man.
Anyway, GE Aviation are one of the big players in aviation. Here’s a quote from the website that I am going to link you to in a moment.
GE Aviation designs engines, flightpaths, and advanced aircraft systems. And we wanted to share the intricate choreography of flying in all its glory.
Dancing in the air!
Here’s the video – just 1:48 long – it’s captivating. This link takes you to the GE web page where there is much more of great interest other than the video.
If you only want to watch the video then, of course, there’s a copy on YouTube, as below. Enjoy!
I posted a rather tongue-in-cheek item on the Irish situation yesterday. Anyway, a good friend, Peter M, sent the in following to illustrate both the complexity and, in the end, the delightful simplicity of the Irish bailout. Read on.
It is a slow day in a damp little Irish town. The rain is beating down and the streets are deserted. Times are tough, everybody is in debt, and everybody lives on credit.
On this particular day a rich German tourist is driving through the town, stops at the local hotel and lays a €100 note on the desk, telling the hotel owner he wants to inspect the rooms upstairs in order to pick one to spend the night.
The owner gives him some keys and, as soon as the visitor has walked upstairs, the hotelier grabs the €100 note and runs next door to pay his debt to the butcher. The butcher takes the €100 note and runs down the street to repay his debt to the pig farmer.
The pig farmer takes the €100 note and heads off to pay his bill at the supplier of feed and fuel. The guy at the Farmers’ Co-op takes the €100 note and runs to pay his drinks bill at the pub. The publican slips the money along to the local prostitute drinking at the bar, who has also been facing hard times and has had to offer him “services” on credit.
The hooker then rushes to the hotel and pays off her room bill to the hotel owner with the €100 note. The hotel proprietor then places the €100 note back on the counter so the rich traveler will not suspect anything.
At that moment the traveler comes down the stairs, picks up the €100 note, states that the rooms are not satisfactory, pockets the money, and leaves town!
No one produced anything. No one earned anything. However, the whole town is now out of debt and looking to the future with a lot more optimism.
And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is how the bailout package works.
Recently, I saw something come in to my in-box that just held my attention for sufficiently long to get me to move from scan reading to actually thinking about what I was reading and how it made me feel.
The US government may require cars to include scrambling tech that would disable mobile-phone use by drivers, and perhaps passengers.
No, this is not some other form of Government interference in areas of our lives that are irrelevant to the real world. This is serious stuff:
Believe it or not, I wasn’t always so outspoken about the dangers of distracted driving. Like a lot of folks, I just didn’t give a lot of thought to it.
But that all changed as I met people from coast to coast who told me about the loved ones they lost in senseless crashes caused by texting and cell phone use behind the wheel. And it was their stories–of dreams shattered and lives cut short–that turned the fight to end distracted driving into my personal crusade.
These people have had a profound effect on me. And I think their stories will have a profound effect on you.
SNIP
Just last year, nearly 5,500 people were killed and 500,000 more were injured in distracted driving-related crashes. But, these aren’t statistics. They’re children and parents, neighbors and friends.
The problem is that the average driver doesn’t think that he or she is an average driver: nearly two-thirds of drivers think of themselves as safer and more skillful than a driver of median safety or skills — a statistical impossibility, of course.
When faced with the prospect of automotive mobile phones being disabled, we’d be willing to bet that most drivers, suffused with confidence in their own skills, will think in terms of personal inconvenience and a restriction on personal freedom.
Perhaps it might be better to think of the guy texting in the lane to your left, or the gal yelling at her ex on her iPhone in the lane to your right, and think not of your own inconvenience, but of some distracted dolt killing you.
Remember one unassailable statistic, as explained by the late, great George Carlin: “Just think of how stupid the average person is, and then realize half of them are even stupider!”
LaHood may be right. Disabling mobile phones in cars should not be looked at as a way of protecting you from yourself, but instead as a way of protecting you from the stupid.
The glass is filled half-way. Is it half-full or half-empty?
This is a rhetorical question, of course. It is what comes to mind as I write this simply because of a small half-full/half-empty experience in the last 10 minutes. Let me explain.
I had started watching a video on TED.com. This one was entitled Jared Diamond on why societies collapse. Within a few minutes I started drifting to the comments, and read:
Jared Diamond talks of how societies choose (unwittingly) to collapse. William McDonough with his Cradle to Cradle concept also talks about choices and provides ‘Love of all children of all species for all time’ as a positive conscious choice.
With goals or missions in place (for example profit for businesses) humans have achieved amazing things.
So what would happen if all groups, families and individuals followed a mission of ‘Love of all children of all species for all time’?
I rather liked that. We always have choices. A positive conscious choice is always better.
So I stopped the Jared Diamond lecture and found the William McDonough one, also on TED.com, and conveniently shared on YouTube. It’s just 20 minutes long, so settle down somewhere, perhaps with a glass filled half-way with something!
Learning from Dogs 