Transcending False Dilemmas with Living Income Guaranteed – Part 2 - Sustainability vs Full employment

In my previous blog, I discussed what false dilemmas are, how they are used in our everyday life, how easily we get swayed by false dilemmas and what the consequences are of their use. I also discussed how one is able to broaden one’s view of a situation, taking a step back so one has a more accurate view of the whole picture when faced with false dilemmas.  I gave 4 examples of false dilemmas dominating discussions on very real problems that require direction and solutions. Within this blog I’ll take each example and show how the Living Income proposal steps outside of these false dilemmas and offers real win-win solutions.

Example 1

‘If we want to reduce the use of fossil fuels for a better environment, we will lose thousands of jobs in the energy-sector. So – which do we choose: preventing unemployment or fighting climate change?’

At Naomi Klein’s launch for her new book ‘This changes everything’, Naomi presented the same dilemma to Estela Vasquez, Executive VP at SEIU (United Healthcare Workers East), asking her to comment on the tension that has been existing between climate change and labor union activists – her reply was as follows: “We actually can fight for good jobs, for jobs that deal with the question of having clean energy, renewable energy, to have transportation that is accessible to all, (…) jobs can be created in retro-feeding buildings, in creating new forms of energy, in creating transportation that is clean, in creating a new society, where the determining factor is not profit, but the determining factor is the well-being of every living thing on Earth, not just human beings.”

She further mentioned that the interests at stake with climate change and pollution are heartfelt by the same people whose jobs may be insecure – what does it matter, for instance, if one secures a good job with good working conditions, if one’s child develops asthma from playing in the garden, breathing compromised air? There shouldn’t be a choice between one or the other – because both factors are, in different ways, affecting individuals’ well-being.

With a Living Income Guaranteed in place, one will always have a security net available when it comes to job losses or threat of losing one’s job – where it can be recognized that loss of employment is not an infringement on basic human rights, because one’s rights are fundamentally guaranteed through the receiving of a Living Income. When fear of unemployment is removed – flexibility is created in making a transition towards creating different jobs, jobs that are more beneficial to the community at large. The most common excuse from corporations that have not been mitigating the social costs they have helped to create, has been that: ‘we provide employment, and if you don’t want us here, we will find cheaper employment elsewhere’. Such threats become void when jobs no longer stand equal to lifelines. Such threats have created a burden on society at large in having to compromise the future for the present – but now we are walking into that compromised future. When we are faced with points such as climate change – creativity and innovation play a key-role – it is a time that calls for human potential to freely move – a potential that remains shackled as long as human rights are linked to jobs, where eventually the employer and the availability of alternative employment, determine what one can and cannot do in life, what forms of society we can and cannot aspire to, what solutions we can or a cannot bring into manifestation. A Living Income Guaranteed allows us to stop the cycles of the past and allows us to, instead, start addressing the problems we’ve created as well as ensuring that we do not make the same mistakes again.

Of course, it’s not sufficient for human creativity and inspiration to move freely – ideas must be able to become a reality and businesses concerned with sustainable and renewable energy sources, for instance, must be given a chance to establish themselves in the market. Here we’re looking at economic power-plays where companies engaged with power-production from fossil fuels have established themselves as pillars within an economy around which everything else turns. Having considerable economic influence, the practice of compromising the opportunity for firms based on renewable energy to establish themselves in that same market is common practice. Within the Living Income Guaranteed proposal, we suggest that the citizens of a country become the owners of companies within that country that produce power – hence – allowing the activities of these companies to be directly accountable to every citizen – and as such – having to keep all citizens’ interests at heart. This changes the economic dynamic in such a way that the entire power producing industry and the role established companies play within it – can be considered within the context of what would be best for all the citizens involved.





http://livingincome.me/ 

http://livingincomeguaranteed.wordpress.com/the-proposal/

Read More

Pollution Inequality and Living Income Guaranteed

One of the reasons pollution has been able to become such a huge problem is that those creating the pollution are usually not the ones suffering its consequences. Let’s take the classical fictional example of a paper factory using a nearby river in which to dump its waste-material. The river-current drags these materials away from the paper factory and to a nearby town that uses the river water for drinking purposes. The paper factory might use the same river for drinking water for its employees or production processes, but it will use the water a bit higher up the river, at a point where the water is still clean. So – even though the factory is producing the waste material, dumping it in the river and so contaminating the quality of the water – it is not the factory itself/those working at the factory who feel and experience the consequences of polluting the river to get rid of its waste. Since the factory doesn’t feel the harm in what it’s doing, it won’t change what it’s doing, unless there are complaints from the villagers who DO experience the consequences of the river pollution and take action so that solutions can be implemented.

Now – a study was done by James K. Boyce, professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts, where he investigated the ‘distribution’ of air pollution. Most people have heard about distribution of income and wealth and how unequal it is. But what about air pollution – is everyone suffering to the same extent or are certain groups/categories of people more exposed – and why?

In an interview with the professor the following was discussed:

LP: Do patterns of inequality differ across the country? How can a person of color or a poor person avoid air pollution?

JKB: Avoiding industrial air pollution is difficult, particularly if you're poor or a member of a racial or ethnic minority. That’s partly because of housing prices. It’s partly because of discrimination in housing and mortgage markets — the phenomenon of red-lining. And it’s also partly because of the tendency for firms to site polluting facilities in relatively low-income and relatively high-minority communities because they expect less political pushback.

Hmmm, that last statement is quite interesting, isn’t it? In the example of our paper factory we were giving the factory ‘the benefit of the doubt’ in saying that – they probably didn’t realize what they were doing within polluting the water of the river, because they weren’t experiencing the consequences of the polluted water. But this statement clearly shows that – polluting firms are not only aware that they are polluting, they are aware that it has negative consequences for others – and yet, so long as they think they can ‘get away with it’, they’ll still do it. And when can they get away with it? When those experiencing the negative outflows are unlikely to speak up or take action to hold the firm accountable.

Or maybe it doesn’t mean that at all. Perhaps – let us entertain this notion for a moment – perhaps people of color or poor people are less likely to initiate political push back because they just don’t mind the air pollution. Maybe they are the enlightened ones who realize that air pollution is really not a big deal and therefore simply don’t want to make a fuss when it isn’t necessary.

But then you get to the following part of the interview:

LP: What are some of the most concerning economic effects of industrial air pollution on communities?

JKB: Air pollution has adverse effects on people’s health, and that means that they have to spend more on healthcare and they miss more days of work, either because they themselves are too ill to go to work or because their kids are sick and they have to stay home and take care of them. It also has adverse effects on property values, which vary with the levels of air pollution in the community.

On top of those outcome effects, it also impacts equality of opportunity, particularly for children. Because communities that are heavily burdened with air pollution tend to have higher incidence and greater severity of childhood asthma, the kids miss more days of school, and partly because they’re missing school and perhaps partly because of the neurological impacts of air pollution on their young and developing cognitive function, there is an adverse effect on school performance.

If you believe, as I think most Americans believe, that every kid deserves an equal chance, that equality of opportunity for children is dear to our society for reasons of both equity and efficiency, then the impacts of disproportionate pollution burdens on the children in some communities – the fact that the playing field is tilted against them through no fault of their own – is a troubling feature of our environmental landscape.

That settles it then – air pollution is definitely a problem that impacts the lives of those who are most exposed to it in a harmful way. So, it’s highly unlikely that they don’t mind – it must be that there is a problem in their ability to voice themselves and push for solutions that would improve their standard of living. And that makes total sense. As we have argued before – political participation is currently a luxury that can only be afforded by those who have the money and the time to firstly educate themselves on what procedures are available to them to organize themselves, formulate complaints and propose solutions – and secondly, walk these procedures and taking action.

With the implementation of a Living Income Guaranteed, companies would no longer have the ability to get away with excessive air pollution in low-income or minority community areas. No matter how much one currently struggles to get by income-wise and no matter if one belongs to a ‘minority community’ – each one’s economic situation would be secured and therefore, each one’s political influence is guaranteed as well. Herein, we could make an end to the cycle of impairing opportunities of those who already have a harder time to make the best of the opportunities they do have. Because once one is caught up in the struggle to survive, one has no bargaining power – one becomes the equivalent of a ‘slave’ within a system where one’s long term benefits are sacrificed for the short term goals of having enough money to put food on the table and pay the bills. And this is known by the bullies of the world who will ensure that the consequences they create are carried mostly by those who don’t have the luxury to put a stop to it.

So, is a Living Income Guaranteed ‘bad news’ for firms? No – not at all. The philosophy of the free market is based on the premise that off-setting individual interests can create the best outcome for everyone. Of course, interests that are not voiced have no power to off-set anything at all – which is precisely what we’re witnessing in the world today. A Living Income Guaranteed would ensure that all interests are considered and play a role within the creation of an optimal outcome. Air pollution is a great example herein, because what is air pollution – it is a way in which the natural equilibrium is disturbed, which, as we are all too aware of, is having consequences on the larger natural systems that the air forms a part of. In essence, it is a form of poisoning the planet, the planet we all share. We can try for a while to keep the effects of pollution isolated so that most, or at least the more affluent, in society don’t have to worry about it. But the planet is an interconnected system and eventually – as we’re noticing with global warming – the effects will reach everyone. So – implementing a Living Income Guaranteed is not only a matter of empowering those without means or voice to make a decent living for themselves in this world – it is a vital step to ensure that we create optimal outcomes for everyone, that cannot be achieved if not everyone is part of the discussion.




http://livingincome.me
http://livingincomeguaranteed.wordpress.com/the-proposal/
https://www.youtube.com/user/LivingIncome
https://plus.google.com/u/0/communities/117690749220880074672
http://www.twitter.com/LivingIncome

Read More

Day 206: Bring your Own Cup and Help Save the Planet!

The other day we went to a shop to get some take-away coffee. Right next to where you get your coffee is a big stand with the prices and types of coffee, and at the bottom in a big font and size it says ‘Bring your own cup and help save the planet!’ and ‘The Earth says: thank you!”.

I’ve seen such statements many times before, but seeing it that day it really dawned to me just how ridiculous a statement like that is. I mean seriously, bring your own cup and help save the planet?

We live in a world where the economic system that runs the world is in direct violation of the Earth’s well-being – where the capacity of the Earth has been stretched to its ultimate for the sake of indefinite growth and profit. And yet somehow the corporations and politicians have to arrogance and audacity to ask people to ‘bring their own cup’ or ‘bring their own bag’ in order to ‘Help Save the Planet’?!

Surely, the waste of take-away cups and plastic-bags is just a SPEC in the face of the actual problem, which is the entirety and totality of both our individual lifestyles and the global lifestyle we have adopted as consumerism and greed. Bringing your own cup and bringing your own bag is not going to Save the Planet. It’s like trying to conserve water by catching a raindrop a day whilst letting all the taps in your house gush out water non-stop. It’s just ridiculous and kind of offending to tell people to ‘bring their own cup’ and make it look like you’re a ‘Responsible Company’ that ‘Cares about the Environment’ while everything a company that runs by the principle of Capitalism represents is the very Disregard an Destruction it is now apparently trying to abate.

Let’s have a look at for instance the whole ‘bring you own bag and save the planet’ motto.

In Britain a study was done where the results showed that on average a Brit uses 134 plastic bags in a year. This equals to 2kgs of carbon dioxide emission – while a typical person is responsible for 11 000 kgs of carbon dioxide emission in a year. That is like 0.018% that you’ve just reduced of your total emission as one person – and the Earth is supposed to say ‘Thank You’ to that? Are we now also assuming that the Planet is a complete idiot?

All those ‘little things’ that are asked of people to ‘Save the Planet’ like bringing your own cup, bringing your own bag, turning off your electronics that are on stand-by, boiling no more water in the kettle than what you need, turning off the tap while you brush your teeth, etc. – all make only a marginal difference of maximum 1% in terms of per capita emissions and mostly less than that.

The UK Government has spent £22m in the past on a ‘Do Your Bit’ Campaign promoting these type of ‘easy’ ‘quick fix’ solutions and then had to admit that the campaign produced no measurable change in people’s behaviour.

In fact, promoting these ineffectual little actions perpetuates the problem even more, where ‘bring your own cup’, ‘bringing your own bag’ and doing some recycling:

“Mori concluded that it was becoming an act of "totem behaviour" and that "individuals use recycling as a means of discharging their responsibility to undertake wider changes in lifestyle". In other words, people can adopt the simplest solutions as a part of a deliberate denial strategy that enables them to feel virtuous without changing their real behaviour.

Governments and businesses are, if anything, even more prone to tokenistic behaviour than individuals. Encouraging small voluntary actions by the public, customers or staff looks good and is much safer than passing restrictive legislation or rethinking your entire business model”.

As long as we don’t start re-evaluating our socioeconomic and political system that we live in and by, it does not matter what little token behaviour we participate in because it’s not going to make a damn difference. We need to strip the system down and rebuilt in from the foundation up – create a system that takes into account the environment and what it takes to reach and remain in equilibrium and harmony.

Within Equal Money Capitalism, points like emission and pollution will no longer just be ‘externalities’ that one does not have to account for and that are ‘conveniently’ here to be used at one’s whims. Just as someone gets something in return for their labour in a company, so will nature/the planet/earth receive something in return for what was given. If you for instance use water in the production process of your product and this water gets polluted/contaminated in anyway whatsoever: then it is your responsibility to also handle to process of purification. Only when we give as we like to receive, can we live in a sustainable, harmonious and equilibrated way with and within our environment.

Save Planet Earth? Support Equal Money Capitalism.

[info and numbers come from this article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/sep/13/ethicalliving.climatechange]

Related articles

• Day 322: The Image and Likeness of Slaves
• Day 200: Collapse of Global Civilization Inevitable?
• Day 194: Who Owns the Moon?
• Day 201: The Power of 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 +... in Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 204: Food Monopoly and Equal Money Capitalism

Read More

Day 170: Companies and Industries in EMC

Note: The EMC is an entirely new project that was started a week ago or so. We’re at the moment in the phase where we are brainstorming by answering questions. It’s a messy process – but an effective one to get all the relevant points addressed. So – also note that points will evolve and change as we go as we are not setting things in stone, but on a journey towards designing the EMC. The principles upon which EMC is based are laid out in the previous blog-posts. From those principles, we work our way towards what life in EMC would practically be like and how the system will function from an economic perspective.

The Pharmaceutical Industry

Q: What about the pharmaceutical industry, will it disappear?

A: The pharmaceutical industry will still exist - but will be aligned according to what's Best for All and not according to profit for the rich.

Monopolies

Q: Will we only have a few companies doing the same thing? And will the work be divided up? Like, will a company have a certain part of the world to look after?

A: With EMC, we are moving away from monopolies, where a select amount of big corporations has control over particular products. Companies will be far more regional and community based as companies will exist from a point of responsibility towards their particular community. Within EMC, providing goods and services is not an opportunity to ‘hit it big’ in the world – it is how one contributes to society to make Life on Earth a worthwhile experience for everyone. When companies are locally based and operational, transport costs will of course also be cut down, which will reduce pressure on the environment.

Which Laws Will Regulate Companies?

Q: Which law will companies belong to? Will the companies answer to local laws or will there be global laws.

A: The EMC will probably develop country by country – so the laws will firstly be national and as more countries join - international agreements will be drafted, which will eventually become law. On a national level – laws will be specifically tailored according to the specific region/environment.

Air Travel

Q: What about air travel as each plane that takes off puts 16,000 pounds of pollution in the air?

A: Air travel companies will have to find ways to either mitigate the effects of the pollution or develop different technologies so they don't have to react to the problem - prevention is always the best cure. When problems like this are serious - quotas will be used to limit the amount of pollution.

Related articles

• Day 167: Harmony and Equilibrium within Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 163: Equal Money Capitalism - Redefining Profit
• The Future of Integrity with Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 169: Equal Living within Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 166: Corporate Social Responsibility in Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 165: Equal Profit Share and Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 259: Give Happiness, Get Happiness

Read More

Day 168: The Future of Integrity with Equal Money Capitalism

Note: The EMC is an entirely new project that was started a week ago. We’re at the moment in the phase where we are brainstorming by answering questions. It’s a messy process – but an effective one to get all the relevant points addressed. So – also note that points will evolve and change as we go as we are not setting things in stone, but on a journey towards designing the EMC. The principles upon which EMC is based are laid out in the previous blog-posts. From those principles, we work our way towards what life in EMC would practically be like and how the system will function from an economic perspective.

Money in EMC

Q: What will money be backed by? will anything give it its value...or is that not necessary?

A: Life value will back money -- Labour backs money - which is your capital - that is why the money supply will increase and decrease according to population as each one requires to have an income that recognises their life value and that allows them to live a life worth living.

Q: In terms of printing money and the paper and money that costs, rather turning everything digital ?

A: Yes - digital - let's not kill trees for no reason.

Politics in EMC

Q: Who will sit in governmental positions? no more elections?

A: Politics will largely remain the same as within the EMS proposal - so, yes - there will still be elections. To read up on this point, please read: http://equalmoney.org/wiki/Politics

Q: will we vote on every decision directly through internet? Or still elect once every 5 years and they can do whatever they want after elected?

A: This will be organised in the same was as presented in the Equal Money System wiki: direct democracy - everyone is directly involved in policy making

What about those who provide services instead of goods?

Q: How do people earn an income from jobs that don't produce a product that is purchased, or will everyone need to do a job that produces something to be bought? Or does compensation also happen as paid from the government not just consumers purchasing products?
A: Any value that is added, whether through providing goods or services, will be compensated. So – the same principle applies to employees in companies that produce goods and employees of companies that provide services – the price of the good or the service is determined in such a way that all participants receive a fair share of the profit so that all end up with an equal income. In terms of those working for the government or providing government services – they will also receive an equal income – this is the purpose of taxation.

How to Ensure Full Employment?

Q: How do we make sure everyone is employed; will we have to create meaningless jobs like in the army – dig a hole, cover a hole? 

A: There are many jobs that require to be done that aren't being done at the moment - the Earth is barely taken care of. Remember that a company’s responsibility will extent further than merely the production of goods and services. Each company will have a Compassion and an Environmental Department.

Compassion Departments are a social function. Such departments will assist, for instance, with giving care to the elderly, organising and providing daycare, assisting victims of natural disasters and so on. Individuals whose jobs within the production process are replaced by technology, will instead be employed within the Compassion Department of the company and continue to receive their income.

Environmental Departments of a company fulfil the function of giving as one would like to receive. Companies will use resources from the Earth and will likely create pollutants that affect the environment. The Environmental Departments are in charge of giving back to the Earth in terms of assisting the environment to renew the resources that were taken, for instance, through tree-planting, creating dams, etc. Furthermore, it will assist within mitigating or stopping the negative effects of pollutants, such as, for instance, water or air purification.

Once everyone is employed and all meaningful jobs are being done - we decrease working hours. For instance, if a job requirement is 8 hours, 2 people can do 4 hours each. Also - people don't have to work for 60 years of their lives - we can go on retirement when we are 30-40.

Related articles

• Day 163: Equal Money Capitalism - Redefining Profit
• Day 167: Harmony and Equilibrium within Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 166: Corporate Social Responsibility in Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 165: Equal Profit Share and Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 162: EQUAL MONEY CAPITALISM - The Way Forward
• Day 259: Give Happiness, Get Happiness

Read More

Day 166: Corporate Social Responsibility in Equal Money Capitalism

Note: The EMC is an entirely new project that was started a few days ago. We’re at the moment in the phase where we are brainstorming by answering questions. It’s a messy process – but an effective one to get all the relevant points addressed. So – also note that points will evolve and change as we go as we are not setting things in stone, but on a journey towards designing the EMC. The principles upon which EMC is based are laid out in the previous blog-posts. From those principles, we work our way towards what life in EMC would practically be like and how the system will function from an economic perspective.

Allocation of Profit Shares and Price Determination

Q: Will profit share allocation be calculated on a yearly basis as is done now or how it would take place?

A: Profit is not to be understood in the same way as it is now. At the moment - profit is what is left after wages have been paid and production costs are covered. Within EMC - there will be no wages - your profit will be your wage.

So - every time a product is scanned when it is bought - the computer sees what percentage of the price is allocated to whom - and immediately the money-allocation happens accordingly. So - there's no need to wait a year to calculate profits - it will be immediate.

So - understand - that within EMC - you only ever pay for added value - added value is the value you add to a resource through labour - that - and then of course your tax. So - you're not paying for your resources. When value is given by a person - the person receives in return through profit. When resources are used by companies - they must give back as much as they can. So if a company uses wood within their production process, there will be a department within the company that plants trees. The same with using water - if clean water is taken - the dirty water after the production process is complete, must be purified and go back to the Earth. So - resources won't be owned - it will be a matter of take what you need and give back as you received.

Population Growth in EMC

Q: How will population increase be dealt with?

A: In terms of money supply - as more people are born, more money requires to be printed - because more people require an equal income. The money supply is increased through the government printing money and spending money. If population shrinks, money requires to be removed from circulation. In terms of slowing down population growth - income for those who are currently poor will play a big role within it. Many poor families have many children so that there are more workers in the family to bring in more income. When that necessity falls away, families will become smaller. It has been shown by scientific research that when a family's income increases - less money is spent on 'quantity' of children - and more is spent on the 'quality' of the child’s life - if you have a large amount of children it becomes harder to support them in such a way that they become the best and happiest person they can be.

Resources in EMC

Q: Who will own the resources in an Equal Money Capitalistic System?

A: No one will own the resources - they belong to the Earth and we may use them while we are here.

Q: How do we make sure that not too many resources are used in EMC?

A: On the level of companies - sustainable use of resources will be managed in two ways. A company must support the Earth in such a way that it can most effectively renew the resource that was used. This is managed by the Environmental Departments of Companies (See the section on ‘Immediate Allocation of Profit Share). For non-renewable resources or when the eco-system requires more extensive support - quotas will be implemented - placing a cap on how much of a particular resource can be used within a particular time-frame.

On the level of households – sustainable use of resources will be encouraged through a number of ways:
The first point is to introduce recycling – whenever you go buy something new - you bring in the old so it may be recycled by the company. This will already remove a lot of the strain on digging up new resources instead of re-using what has already been processed.
Second – products will require to adhere to certain standards - where warranty will have to be as long as possible so that people don't require to go and buy new things to replace old things too often.
Other waste that is produced by households will require to be managed by certain government departments or government funded companies. For instance – drinking water that is used in the home for instance, that people pollute - will be addressed by the sewage system, which is a government point - where the government is in charge of purifying the water again.

Related articles

• Day 163: Equal Money Capitalism - Redefining Profit
• Day 165: Equal Profit Share and Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 259: Give Happiness, Get Happiness
• Day 162: EQUAL MONEY CAPITALISM - The Way Forward

Read More

Day 30: Save the Planet, Kill the Camels! - Part 1

About a year ago - the Australian government was considering passing a law that would allow the killing of camels to reduce greenhouse gasses!

"Each camel belches an estimated 100 pounds (45 kilograms) of methane a year, which is equivalent to a metric ton (1.1 U.S. ton) of carbon dioxide in its impact on global warming. That’s roughly one-sixth the amount of CO2 that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says an average car produces annually."
--Admin of B-Fair Project, 2011

And because camels are apparently such heavy polluters of our dear environment, it is okay to kill about one million of them. This is proof of the genius of the human mind - I mean - what a beautiful solution to save the world! In order to save our planet, let's go and kill some more wild animals! Instead of actually looking at the real polluters in the world - the humans - we'll go kill off animals because, what? - they fart?!?

The idea to kill all humans is a much less ridiculous and preposterous idea than to kill all camels - it's definitely more fair, seeing humans are the most destructive species alive today and it would also be a far more effective solution in actually saving the planet - as humans are the only species who deliberately destroy the planet knowing full well that there is another way, for the sake of greed and profit.

The truth behind the story is that the Australian government just wanted to get rid of the camels because they are seen as a threat - there are so many of them running amuck that they trample vegetation, invade human settlements and scare people as they rip open their bathroom pipes in order to find water. So - they are seen as a 'pest' and a 'threat' that needs to be 'taken care of'.

What they don't tell you is that camels are not indigenous to Australia - the cause of the problem, as usual - is the human. In the 1900s camels were introduced to Australia as a means of transportation. Once there was no need for them anymore, they let them go and now they're doing what they have to do in order to survive. So - instead of just re-locating them to an area that forms a natural habitat for them, it's easier and (more importantly) cheaper to just kill them all.

It's fascinating, on top of all this bullshit, that the 'truly' wild camels (camels that were never domesticated) of China and Mongolia are a highly endangered species - where there's only about 650 of them left in north-west China and 450 in the desert of Mongolia - making them the 8th most endangered large mammal on the planet.

I have tried to find any information relating to whether or not this law has been passed - but sadly enough, the media is just not there to properly inform us about the state of the world. There was a big hype when the information got out about the new law that was being proposed and countless of articles can be found about how the Australian government was considering this point - but I couldn't find a single article about whether or not the law had now been passed. If the media was truly concerned with informing the general population, then they would've followed through on their story and their would've been at least as many articles on the topic of the initial consideration of the law as on the actual result of the discussion. Media has shown once again that it merely cares about sensation and doesn't really have anyone's interests at heart.

Sources:

Admin of 'B-Fair Project', 2011. Killing Camels For Carbon Credits. 26/06/2012. http://www.b-fair.net/?p=2441

Wild Camel Protection Foundation. 2010. http://www.wildcamels.com/

Read More

Day 1: The "Other Side" of Miracle Economic Growth

See the following article for background information: The Downside of Growth: Law, Policy and China's Environmental Crisis by Alex Wang

I forgive myself that I haven't accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that economic growth does not come without its consequences and ripple effects

I forgive myself that I haven't accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that what goes in must also go out

I forgive myself that I haven't accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that when pushing for economic growth that this means increasing pressure on the environment, the Earth and its resources

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to have created a world where the only number that counts as value is that of money -- where all countries are competing with their GDPs as to "who" will have the highest rate of growth -- who will be the winner and who will be the loser

I forgive myself that I haven't accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that growth and production requires resources -- and within that I forgive myself that I haven't accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that "miracle growth" can only be accompanied with "grand decay" where for instance the miracle growth of China came with the price of acid rain affecting arable land moving from 18% to 40%

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to have become obsessed with the idea of growth without taking into considerations the implications and consequences of undertaking such a goal

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to be so indulged with achieving high economic growth rates that I don't mind sending countless amounts of people as emergency cases to the hospital

I forgive myself that I haven't accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that economic growth and higher GDP does not mean better living standards for ALL

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to completely disregard the physical reality, the living beings and organism where economic growth comes at the cost of polluting the environment to the extent where the air we breathe hurts the eyes and lungs

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to have become completely blinded by the pursuit of profit, production and growth and within that not take into consideration that this pursuit leaves countless amounts of animals endangered and extinct

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to rape the earth in the name of economic growth without taking into consideration the long term and permanent lasting effects such as water pollution, killing of animals, deforestation, desertification, soil erosion, lowering of environmental quality leading to disease and premature deaths

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to only consider growth in the "economic" sense -- a sense which is actually invisible and "made-up" by human beings as a separate entity "out there" and within that neglect and abuse growth in the physical sense in terms of the earth, nature, animals, plants and human beings -- causing deteriorating effects on the health of the planet and everything and everyone living upon it

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to value an invisible made up entity more than what is really here as the physical, as life

I forgive myself that I haven't accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that infinite economic growth and finite resources cannot co-exist in the same reality

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to delude myself into believing that through the forces of the market we are able to "transcend" physical limitations as finite available resources

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to have created a separate mind reality of perfect markets and rational economic agents where resources are distributed just the way they should be which does not at all match the actual situation on earth

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to rather want reality to adjust to fit my theory instead of being humble and admit that my theory does not match reality and that maybe I should reconsider the current economic system to actually suit the situation on Earth


I commit myself to exposing the consequences and side effects of pursuing economic growth over the overall well being of the Earth and all its inhabitants

I commit myself to breaking down and deconstructing the current world economic system and reconstruct an economic system which suits Life on Earth for REAL

I commit myself to design, construct and implement a world economic system which will distribute the Earth's resources in a way that is Best for All and not just in a way where the resources follow those with money

I commit myself to re-defining value where I let go of my old values of self-interest and growth of grandeur for down to earth values concerning the Earth and its inhabitants within the principle of what is Best for All

I commit myself to investigate and study how the physical reality works in order to be able to implement economic policies which do not have damaging effects to Life on Earth

I commit myself to the construction and implementation of an Equal Money System where resources are managed in a responsible and considerate way -- for all those living now and those of the future

I commit myself to educate myself and others on how the physical reality operates so we may realise the ginormous crimes that we are committing through our ignorance and lack of consideration for All Life

I commit myself to put beings over numbers

I commit myself to change the current World System where only the wants, needs and desires of humans are used as a measuring stick of value to a World Economic System where LIFE is the only measuring stick of value

I commit myself to the implementation of a World System where all is taken care of, including our environment

I commit myself to a World System where we support the environment, the earth, the animals and the plants -- the same way as they support us as human beings

Read More