Eco-Plimsoll Line

Eco-Footprint Project

Leonard Angel is spearheading a research and education project investigating the role international law and treaties might play in responding to the disturbing fact that our global use of resources is exceeding the earth's capacity to replenish them. For information on the project or how to be added to the mailing/discussion list, please contact Leonard at the e-mail address below, or phone (604) 876-6925.

Can We Sustain the Planet?

A talk by Leonard Angel.

Comments on the article may be made in our Forum Dialogue at http://www.vcn.bc.ca/wfcvb/forum/index.php.

Worldgov.info

Also Doron Dekel has created a new web site containing a discussion forum dedicated to world governance - worldgov.info, which he would like to promote as the primary "watering hole" for anyone interested in pushing forward (or opposing) the idea of strengthening the world governance system towards a democratic world government.

Please visit and feel free to register as a new user ("register" button) and start posting.

Eco-Plimsoll Line

The Plimsoll Line For The 21st Century: Three Main Models to Choose from
Leonard Angel
World Federalist Movement Canada Vancouver Branch July 15 2004
Unitarian [email protected]

1. Everyone can create international law.
How? To begin with, the world has become vastly interconnected in so manyways.There are trade relations, and, thereby, economic relations, that wrap theworld into a single but extremely complicated multi-stranded cord. We eatapples from the South Pacific. Why? I'm not sure. But we do.There are many significant immigration patterns. Vancouver is now a UnitedNations. There are amazing information interconnections. Turn on the internet, andyou can be wowed by the vastness of what's available, from arcane academicessays, to popular sophisticated discussions, to pornography and gambling.The good, the neutral, and the bad­­or should I have said the usefullyneutral, the good, and the bad?­­anyway, the interconnection producesinstances of everything.

There is a vast cultural network that interlocks the globe. Anyone here hasaccess to cultural materials from anywhere else on the planet. And of courseanyone on the planet, give or take a mere million or two, has access to CocaCola and McDonald. Intellectually, there are many currents that cross the globe. The olddivisions between the Eastern religions and the Western religions, forexample, were re-thought so they became the Asian religions and theOccidental religions. What's East to one location is West to another. So atleast the language had to change. But the language change wasn't goodenough. The spread of Christianity in Africa and, to a degree, anyway, thediminishment of active Christianity in Europe, are significant. The countrywith more Muslims than any other country is Indonesia. Yet Islam is classedwith Judaism and Christianity as Occidental. Why? Because it started inSaudi Arabia, and then moved both east to India and west to the Atlantic.Don't ask me to figure that one out at all. Anyway, Yoga and Buddhism arespreading throughout the Occidental world. And the scientific methods arecurrent everywhere in the globe. We have worldwide intellectual streams thatramble and crisscross like the huge ocean currents. We all want happiness,and the scientific, ethical, philosophical, and religious lines scrambleacross the globe making for a fascinating multi-stranded mix.The political connections are deeply established as well, as we see from theGeneral Assembly, the Security Council, the International Court of Justice,and many other UN bodies. Obviously there are many problems of grossinadequacy in international governance. And we're going to be talking aboutone key example today. Last year we noted how a fantasy dream of WorldFederalists of fifty five years ago is now a concrete reality in the form ofthe International Criminal Court. This is something that all members of theWorld Federalists during any period from 1950, say, till the late 1990's hadimportant roles to play, just by being members, and, if they could, by beingactive. It was the members who, actively, or supportively, pushed towardcreating that vital and history making institution­­the first permanentcourt that can try anyone, including an active president, prime minister, ormonarch, for international crimes, like crimes of war, crimes againsthumanity, and genocide. For those who like the fine points of detail, theWorld Federalist Movement was officially the coordinator of all the NGO'sthat came together to urge the politicians to create the ICC. And it wasacknowledged fully as a vital participant in the creation of the ICC at itsinauguration.

And that wasn't the only accomplishment of citizens acting as citizens ofthe world to create international law. There was the landmines treaty, thelaw of the seas, and other such international laws too with absolutelycrucial input from non-politicians.Now we come to the planetary ecological forces. Hollywood has already made The Day After Tomorrow, premised on the possibility of a strong global ecological catastrophe. So when it hits Hollywood, it's something we allknow about. And, more specifically, we all know that there is an enormoussurplus of greenhouse gas emissions, there are ozone holes, fossil aquiferdepletions, dropdowns in extractable non-renewable petroleum. And these arethe items we're going to be talking about today: The global ecologicalpicture, and international law.

At the moment we simply note: The world is phenomenally interconnected.That's a mantra that won't mislead anyone one bit. And while we're talkingin platitudes, we may as well review one other platitude: All of us here, weall want the same thing. We want an increase in basic happiness levels.We want the poor to have access to water, food, shelter, medicine, andmeaningful cultural activities in addition to those for purposes ofsustenance. We want to put an end to war. That's a big job, but we want anend to war. Centuries ago, we acted to put an end to slavery. We acted toput an end to duels. At still earlier times, people thought that thoseobjectives, the ending of slavery and dueling, would be impossible toachieve. However, at the overt public level at least, enormous positivechanges have come about for dueling and for slavery. I'm not ignoring theresidual problems, yet we've made enormous strides. We want to do the samefor war. And we won't give up till we get what we want. Also, want an end tounjust discriminations based on gender, sexual orientation, race, religionand similar features. There is so much that we need to do.Tonight we're going to continue creating international law, and we'll do so,looking at the needed international laws on ecological matters.

2. We're overusing the world.Let's start with a simple question. The question is about this statement:"If everyone on earth lived the way Canadians live, we would need three orfour planets." Do you think that¹s true? I bet you do. I¹ve asked variouspeople the question, and they all said, "Yeah, I¹ve heard that that¹s true."And they had good reason to think so. The ecological footprint thinkers havedone analyses of how much of the earth each person uses. Their results havebeen solid and are not controversial. It¹s now widely known that thecitizens in well developed countries are using so much of the planet that ifeverybody on earth lived the way we do, we¹d need many planet earths tosustain us. This is so accepted that it¹s even made it into a standard, easily obtained,readily usable, grade six textbook called "Global Citizens" that my wifeuses while teaching her grade six social studies class.But what isn¹t so well known is what the ecological footprint thinkers havealso found, using the very same tools. It¹s a shocking result, and everybodyin the media¹s been awfully quiet about it, even though it¹s a BIG WAKERUPPER. And it¹s as solid a result as the one that¹s found its way into gradesix textbooks. I'm glad you're all sitting down. You better be sitting down.It's that big a waker upper. Here it is:Since around 1980, the average human use of the planet is exceeding theplanet¹s capacity.

That's important! It¹s fifteen alarm bells ringing all at once. It¹s easyenough to admit the first point about overuse of global resources indeveloped countries. You might say, "Alright‹if everyone in the world wouldbe living like us in Canada or the US, then we¹d need to have many planets.That¹s not a pleasant point to observe, but thank goodness not everyone isliving like us in Canada or the U.S." That¹s the sort of attitude peoplehave about our own large use of the planet. But it leaves out the crucialrelationship between our use of the planet, and everyone else¹s use of theplanet too.The calculations enabling us to talk about my ecological footprint inCanada, and your ecological footprint in the US or the UK or Sweden, alsogive us the means to talk about the ecological footprint of someone in aslum in Brazil, someone in the forest in Guinea, and someone in a newhousing development in Beijing. And then when we look at the variety offootprints, the size of the human population, the proportioning of thevarious footprints, and we get an average human footprint. And the averagehuman footprint times the number of people on the planet exceeds theplanet¹s carrying capacity.

When I first heard this I felt like saying, "Uh oh." In fact, I think I didsay, "Uh oh." And then I murmured to myself, "They¹ve got to be making amistake. There¹s something wrong with the notion that our collective actualhuman use of the planet is exceeding the planet¹s carrying capacity." So Ifigured I¹d have to check it out.

And I did just that. I checked it out. First I read Our EcologicalFootprint, Bill Rees's introductory book that sets out the land basis of thecalculations. There is also the ocean use factor, and that was subsequentlycalculated and added into the picture. That gave ecologist Mathis Wackernagel (co-author with Rees of the Our Ecological Footprint) and tenother leading ecologists the material to do the average human usecalculation, which they published in "Tracking the ecological overshoot ofthe human economy" in July 2002.

It¹s two years since this result has been published in the Proceedings ofthe National Academy of Sciences, a distinguished source, indeed, and no onehas undermined its contents. Since 1980 or so, we have been overusing theplanet. How? For one thing, by our dependency on non-renewable oil and gas.Sure, we can hope to make a transition through use of renewable resourceslike waterflow, wind, sun, and organically produced fuels. But resources ofthe planet also have to be used to yield energy from renewable resources. Wehave to make machines for taking energy from the sun, wires for electricity,land uses for wind and sun energy, and generation of ethanol, or methanol,and so on. And the ecologists are telling us that to make up for the lostoil and gas we'd need more land than the planet has. It¹s the planet earth¹s renewable capacity that we¹re already exceeding.

This is the big principle that we're looking at: in general we're measuringthe renewable resources of the planet, and measuring the resources we'reusing in total against the renewable resources, given current safetechnology.

Energy use from fossil fuels isn't the only overuse. We've also beenoverpumping what are called the fossil aquifers, the underground bodies ofwater that it took enormous periods of time to build up; they'redisappearing with untold consequences for populations nearby. Rivers, too,are being so heavily relied on for irrigation and similar uses, that they'renot even making it to the ocean.Waste from mineral extraction and use is poisoning the water systems, livingsystems, and the atmosphere. We all know about mercury, and that's one of many example. The use of petroleum in products and for energy is resultingin too much carbon dioxide for the atmosphere­­more than the trees canabsorb­­so we have global warming and climate change. Chemical outputs arecreating ozone holes in the atmosphere.And the stocks of fish, species by species, have been reducing from 100% acentury or two ago, to 10% now, and the stocks are no longer fishable. Orthe stock will vanish.Consequently, we¹re on the verge of suffering very large catastrophes."Well this is all fancy thinking‹but, although there are problems, ­­no doubtserious problems, ­­there are always solutions. They do come along, youknow. Let¹s not worry about it now.""Okay, let¹s not worry about it now. Let¹s worry about it when we have to."I can say that as easily as you can. But we can also add one little point.And I think you know it as well as I do. If we don¹t start worrying aboutthis now, it¹ll be too late if we start worrying about it later!"Yeah, I suppose you¹re right. By the way, what are we going to do tonight?Go to a movie, or watch a video?"I think we can take the conversation a little bit further if we want to. Ihope you do too. In fact, if we think about this for just a very little bitof time, we¹ll realize that in this problem lies the solution to an evenbigger problem.

What¹s the bigger problem? It¹s the demon that¹s been haunting civilizationfor thousands of years: the drive to endless dominance and growth. At longlast, nature is having the last say. And so we¹re going to have to face thelimits of nature, and we¹re going to have to face them soon.When we do face the limits of nature, we¹ll be staring right at theessentials of human existence. Our essentials have nothing to do withcorporate productivity, nothing to do with exploiting nature¹s resources,nothing to do with slogans like expand, expand, expand. And they haveeverything to do with realizing the gifts we have through stablesustainability.

A few hundred years ago, there was a Zen master who was asked by a farmer toinscribe a message in calligraphy. He picked up his brush and asked, "Whatsort of message?" "Something expressing happiness," said the farmer. The Zenmaster inscribed, "Grandfather dies, son dies, grandson dies." "That¹shappiness??" asked the farmer. The Zen Master said, "Oh, it¹s all in theorder. As long as the order is right, deep happiness is possible."And that¹s the way nature works. Now we need to look at genuinesustainability, or long term sustainability, sustainability withoutcontinuous throughput growth, and we'll call it stable sustainability. Weneed to figure out how to get there. Perhaps we want a system of economics,a system of social values, and a political system of laws and other checksand balances, that yield stable sustainability, and all the simple beautiesthat come with it.

3. Can we avoid stable sustainability?

Let's consider the possibilities. We've been living in planetary ecologicaldeficit since around 1980. So the ecologists are informing us. Yet things,although poor in some respects, are nonetheless okay in other respects. Oneresponse to the ecological deficit problem is to say that perhaps we cancontinue to live within our ecological deficit.

In fact, a simple analogy can be given in the effort to show that livingin ecological deficit is okay. Everyone, (except the wealthy) goes intofinancial deficit when they buy a home. Successful business people typicallygo into financial deficit when they are investing in various businesses.Both home buyers and borrowing business investors are glad for theopportunities, and they end up, by and large, doing alright, despite theirliving through relatively long periods of financial deficit. Perhaps aftertwenty or so years, they can fully discharge their debts. But in themeantime they have acquired significant assets.

Similarly, it might be offered, we are acquiring many economic assets bygoing into ecological deficit, even if it is on a planetary basis.

However, there are some obvious defects in the analogy. At the end ofthe home mortgage period, so long as the purchaser has been paying themonthly payment, the debt is gone. There is no similar process through whicha deficit gets cancelled out through the routine procedures of acquiring anddischarging the debt. In fact, in routine borrowing, there's a paybackperiod. In ongoing ecological deficit, there is no payback period.

Of course there are many laws in place in the developed countriesrequiring some degree of protection of ecological bases. If a forestharvesting company is cutting down trees it will also be re-planting thetrees, and it has to do so by law. But assuming that all such renewing lawsare in place and functioning, still there would be an ecological deficit. Infact that's how the ecological deficit is calculated. The deficit is nothingbut the difference between the renewable supplies of the planet, and theactual use of the planet including use of nonrenewable stocks.

In other words, the deficit exists because there are non-renewableresources being used in the place of renewable resources at a rate greaterthan is substitutable by the renewable resources. And it's exactly this thatconstitutes going into ecological deficit.

So we can see that there is real problem in the analogy. In fifty yearsor so, when the oil and gas resources are likely to be gone, even with allthe price rises on oil and gas, there will still be large traumas as theresource ends.

In addition to the trauma risk in diminishing the use of oil and gas,there is also the consequence to the planet of greenhouse gas emissions thatwould have been taking place for about seventy five years or more. Theclimate change consequences we face are large, indeed, due to the carbondioxide releases, and the extra heat that builds up.

There are also the water shortage risks that come along with ourover-use of the planet. People have loved their rivers for hundreds,thousands, and tens of thousands of years. (Don't ask me to prove the tensof thousands of years part, but I'm sure it's true.) But now some rivers arenot reaching the ocean. And the fossil aquifers are going dry. And theglacier melting may lead to dangerous rises in ocean levels.

So: the 'investment' analogy is deficient.

There is a way the advocate of the investment analogy can try to reply.That is to hold that we'll come up with the right inventions allowing formore efficient energy production when we need them.

This reply is the current mainstream economic assumption, and it, too,is highly suspicious, to put it mildly. It ignores the climate change andwater shortage problems. More importantly, the over-use of the planet issomething really new in human history. There is no base on which to say thatthe increased efficiency will result in a payback on the ecological deficit.In fact, increased efficiencies in the past have resulted in increasedconsumption of resources through other means. [Also, the Easter Islandpeople lived on a remote island. During the first half of the lastmillennium, they must have known that they were over-using their finiteresources. Still they used them, recklessly, and fell back into a much moreprimitive mode of living around five hundred years ago.]

The choice facing us is now clear: either we adopt the new religiousfaith according to which we'll make just the right new inventions for energyefficiency, for water replenishment, for reduction of climate change, forabsorption of greenhouse gases, etcetera etcetera, and all will work outwell, or we have to get a better response to the ecological deficit problem.

It's a choice between a kind of evidence-less faith in the rightinventions at the right time and the magically right uses of them too, or aconfrontation with the plain ordinary bottom line evident to all who wouldopen their eyes. To put it another way, it's a choice between market use andinventions (as part of market use), or facing the finitude of the planet.Going for a theoretically invincible market that ignores the physicalrealities reminds me of how, in the 17th century, the church leaders,relying on the infallible Pope, just wouldn't look through Galileo'stelescope to see the moons of Jupiter.

Let's look through the ecologist's telescope­­no, the ecologist'smagnifying glasses, if that­­to see the ecological moons of Jupiter righthere on earth.

4. The Voluntary Revolution Response

There is a second response to the problem of the ecological deficit. I'llcall it the Voluntary Revolution Response. The first response says somethinglike, "We always have had troubles. There have been earthquakes, hurricanes,tornadoes, floods, draughts, destructive monsoons, diseases, volcanoes; andthese have resulted, and will continue to result, in enormous suffering. So,our ecological deficit adds another risk factor. And we can sustain the riskof the suffering resulting from ecological deficits. We can also trust themarket to do what it can to help."Unfortunately, the previous troubles have been serious, but they're alllocal disturbances. The new trouble is global. That's really new. We don'twant to ignore the state of the planet. And at the more plain level, we dowant an answer to our simple and basic question, What can we do about theecological deficits we are creating? Let's do what everybody does when adanger faces. Let's look at the specifics of the danger. If it's ahurricane, we want to board up the windows. What are our windows, and whatare our boards? It's simple enough to look at the problem. Even if you wanta market and invention based solution, you don't want to turn your head inanother direction. You want to see what the market solutions can be, andwhat sort of inventions could do the required job.Alright, let's do that. If the ecologists are right that we've been over thefinite edge of the planet for about twenty five years­­then we need to lookat the candidates for solutions to the ecological deficit. We'll look at twoplans to start with.4a. Lester Brown's popular planThe first is a popular plan as summarized by Lester Brown. Lester Brown isthe Founder of the World Watch Institute, and well known for his vision andinfluence, too. I'll work from his recent book for a broad audience, called"Plan B". His recipes for help center on the following features. We should:o slow our population growth, and use social family planning and universaleducationo raise water prices, so long as there are base lifeline amounts unpricedo reduce seepage in water surface transfero increase drip irrigationo laser level lando use less water-demanding cropso implement better management of local water use

o harvest rainwater

o use composting toilets

o save cooling water with wind farms

o move down the food chain to save water

o double crop more consistently

o switch animals for more grain efficiency

o increase 2nd harvest of milk

o use soil conservation methods like shelterbelt trees, terracing,contour farming, and minimum tillage

o use more energy efficient power generation equipment and more energyefficient household appliances

o use re-fillable beverage containers

o use CFL bulbs and hybrid cars

o harness the wind, use hydrogen fuel, and sun based electricity, anduse geothermal energy

o curb HIV

o implement health improving education, and school lunches

o raise ecological taxes, and end destructive subsidies

In response to these ideas, all of us will say, "Yes. They're excellentideas, practical, and sound in their effects." There are, however, two problems that get me to scratch my head. Thefirst is this: we know that the basic economic model we're work fromprescribes growth, growth, growth. We also know that when more efficientenergy extraction means have been found, the savings generated have goneinto increased consumption in other areas.

So Lester Brown's solutions still leave us with a big problem, and wecan't ignore it. If we use all of these solutions, we still need to face thecurrent economic prescription of growth, growth, growth. Savings here willresult in growth elsewhere.

Another element is needed in a solution based on these sorts ofelements. That element we can call the Voluntary Revolution aspect. Namely,there has to be an internal shift on the part of all, or a large majority,of the people of the planet, so that we no longer think in the growth,growth, growth way. Instead, we think in the steady-state economic modelway. We understand that there should be something like the Zen master'snotion of a succession of generations expressing a kind of universalhappiness, insofar as is possible, within the finite limits of the planet,and a relatively large population base. It's desirable that there be such arevolution, and in some sense it will be voluntary. But whether it will beproduced without a regulatory system to encourage or require it to comeabout is the key issue.

The second problem is that Lester Brown's solutions don'tstraightforwardly address the full details of the eological deficit problem.Let's think about it for a moment. The problem is that we don't haverenewable sources for our water use and our energy use. And we'll keep usingmore and more, under the current economic guidelines. How do Lester Brown'sproposals advise us to deal with the economic push to a planetary ecologicalshortage? How do we undo the economic tendencies that will, one way oranother, continue to lead to the overuse of the planet that Wackernagel etal have been telling us about?4b. Daly and Farley's Ecological EconomicsLet's look at a second ecological economic approach to the problem. Thisapproach is a more academic, textbook approach for the problem and itspotential solutions. We will look at the messages of Herman Daly and JoshuaFarley, in Ecological Economics (published this year, 2004), chapters 20 to23.

Daly and Farley alert us to three basic goals: We need to find ways toachieve sustainable scale, just distribution, and efficient allocation. (Inoptimal efficient allocation, we have a system in which no other system willmake someone better off unless someone else is made worse off.)[By Jan Tinbergen's principle of the 1950's, we'll need three independentinstruments to deal with these three independent goals. We also want anappropriate balance of macro-control and micro-freedom and variability; weneed to allow for margins of error. For example we don't want to comfortablyset up what looks like an okay system to manage plutonium decay, and thenhave a catastrophic error. Also, we want to start from current conditions,use adaptable policies, and ensure that there is what is calledsubsidiarity, the principle that the policy makers should be from a domaincongruent with the problem's causes and solutions. These are the broadprinciples.]

Daly and Farley note that the market does not achieve sustainable scale.There has to be a social or collective limit on aggregate throughput ofordered materials into the economy and back into the ecosystem as waste;such limits aren't imposed by an open market.[Similarly, distributive fairness needs a socially limited range ofinequality imposed on the market. Finally, allocative efficiency (as themarket might be able to achieve) won't happen unless scale and fairnessissues are resolved. Daly and Farley place scale first and distributionsecond in order of resolution. For example, if you want to resolve theamount of carbon dioxide emissions, you need to know how much can bereleased; then you can design an instrument that fairly distributes theamounts to be released to the various parties.]

The criterion for scale is sustainability, just as the criterion fordistribution is justice.

Daly and Farley then note that throughput (that is, the movement fromnatural sources, through economics, and back as waste into nature) can bemore easily controlled as it moves from the natural source into the economythan as it moves from the economic output back into the sink of nature. Forexample, there are fewer mines than there are exhaust pipes, garbage dumps,smokestacks, etc. Daley and Farley also note that it is preferable tocontrol quantities and let prices follow such controls. This fits the marginof error principle better, for one thing. However, the control by sourcerather than sink is itself revolutionary, since the sources tend to beowned, often privately, and the sink tends to be unowned. Nonetheless,requiring quantity limits at the source inputs rather than through sinklimits by taxes or licenses is more straightforward, and faces the problemmore directly.

Now we're at the key point: how Daly and Farley want to implement thesustainable system.

For sustainability, Daly and Farley consider a number of policy options.First are direct regulations, including command and control regulations,such as are used to prevent over-fishing, to ban harvest during matingseasons, to impose minimum net sizes in fishing. However, direct regulationstend to prevent micro-freedom. One policy on amount of pollutionrestrictions for all companies ignores different companies differentmarginal abatement costs (MAC's), that is, different costs for loweringtheir pollution. The results for the overall economy might be better reachedthan by a simple direct regulation.

Pigouvian taxes work differently by taxing an amount equal to themarginal external cost. (The name is based on A. C. Pigou, an economistworking on these problems in the 1910's and 20's.) This forces the agent toaccount for all economic costs. Basically this means that firms are free tocreate external damage­­for example, they can pollute­­but only if they payfor the damages of their pollution. If polluting less is cheaper than payingfor the full pollution amount, they'll pollute less; if paying is cheaper,they'll pay the damages.

Alternatively, there could be Pigouvian subsidies. In this case one paysthe firm for abating their damages. However, this can lead to increases inpollution, with more companies going for the subsidies.

There can also be tradeable permits. A quota can be set up by agovernment, and permits can be traded within the quota.

There are also policies using special seasons only for various purposes.Daly and Farley compare shorter seasons policies with tradeable permits, andnote the disadvantages of the shorter seasons policies. There is increasedactivity during the short seasons, with much damage that results from toomany people trying to accomplish more than can be accomplished during thetime period.

[On matters of distribution, various state based policies areconsidered, including caps on income and wealth; providing minimum incomes;broader based capitalism through such provisions as employee shareholderownership and community shareholder ownership of corporations. The ending ofgiveaway public subsidies, in which public goods are given away tocorporations, various forms of land taxes, and sky trust provisions are alsoreviewed. For example, in the sky trusts, quotas are established in formsaleable in an auction, and the income to the trust goes into a trust fund,and the returns on the fund are distributed to the citizens in cash in equalshares.]

[As for efficient allocation, the difficulties in pricing non-marketvalues, like suitability of an environment to its inhabitants, are reviewed.So, too, the seignority principle whereby funds are created by banks, andnot just by governments, is looked at. So, too, the need for revisingadvertising structure is put forward. It may well be we need full disclosureadvertising.]

[Others, undoubtedly, would advocate looking at the corporate structurewith a critical eye. Triple bottom lines could be implemented in thestructure of corporate work.]

So far, the measures are understood as state measures. But, as Daly andFarley couldn't help but notice, there is a need for sustainability measuresthat aren't merely state based measures. As they put it, "problems of globalscale must ultimately be solved via global policies" (419).

And Daly and Farley do go over some global or at least internationalpolicies on global matters. They mention the possibility of a Pigouviansubsidy for ecosystem services. Under this policy, for example, the wealthynations would pay a nation like e.g., Brazil, for the ecoservice of keepingits forests intact. Perhaps, they say, "25 areas round the world identifiedby scientists that contain an unusually large number of species and areseriously threatened, with 70% or more of the area destroyed" could besupported for their ecosystem services. "[A] global pool of money could bedistributed to the countries that harbor these hot-spots according to howwell they meet well defined conservation criteria" (421). Such a systemwould not have prohibitive transaction costs; and enforcement wouldn't berequired, since payments would only be made after conservation occurs. And,"national sovereignty would remain intact, as no country would be under anyobligation to change behavior" (421). Similarly, such subsidies wouldprovide an incentive and resources to preserve the environment.

They also talk about pairing a national Pigouvian tax to a Pigouviansubsidy.

Daly and Farley go on to talk at the end about "Looking ahead". At thebroad policy level, quotas must be set for sustainability, then the tradingwithin the quotas must allow for just distributions, and the market canbring about efficiency. Politics is in the picture; the market won't bringabout the required results.

This is important and courageous work, to set forth fundamentalprinciples of ecological economics. Once again, though we want to looksquarely and solidly at the overuse of the planet results. According toWackernagel et al, we are overusing the planet by, roughly, 20% of theplanet's renewable carrying capacity. (That was the figure for 1999, and thefigure was steadily rising.) However one of the advantages of a policyadvocated by Daly and Farley is, as we saw, that "national sovereignty wouldremain intact, as no country would be under any obligation to changebehavior." If this is merely incidental to that policy, fine. But if this isto be a major component of ecological economics, we have to wonder if such asystem can possibly address the overuse of the planet. It's as thoughsomeone says, "We're overusing the planet." And the response is, "Let's slowdown the rising rate of the overuse." Hmm. I agree we should do that. Weshould slow down the rising rate of the overuse. I also want a little more.And I hope you do, too.

Let's look at the principles and their applications, again. Oneprinciple is that the domain of the policy makers has to be congruent withthe domain of the causes and possible solutions of the problem. As isobvious, the overuse of the planet comes about through the overfootprinting,that is, the overuse that most industrial states make of the resources ofthe planet. It is, very largely, the trade relations that allowoverfootprinting to take place. How can the overuse problem be addressedwhile there is a complete protection of state sovereignty? It is statesovereignty that has allowed the WTO rules to come into place. The statesare the participants, and allow the bureaucrats to secretly make thedecisions. The Pigouvian subsidies will modify the pace of the overuse, andare positive, but they will not affect the fundamental principle, which isthat we want a global sustainability. We don't want to allow overuses of therenewable resources, and it is the states that are allowing that.

Some people want to bring the state sovereignty back into the picture toreduce the free market globalization. But this isn't good enough, becausethe overuse of the planet is not a state protective problem any more than itwas a state unprotective problem. It's a global problem arising from theeconomic model of grow, grow, grow. That's what has to be addressed. And ifthe only authority basis is the authority basis of the state, then, givencurrent import and export trade, the game is over.

In other words, what we have to look at is the variety of ways in whichan international authority system or systems can address the overuse of theplanet.

What I'm now going to do is present a number of international-authorityways for eliminating the overuse of the planet. We've seen that themarket-plus-inventions method doesn't look at the basic overuse of the globeproblem; and the current ecological economic approaches don't face theglobal domain requirements. What we want to do now is look squarely at theoveruse of the planet problem and face the global domain requirements.5. A multiple global authority systemThe first approach we'll look at is a multi-authority international systemfor dealing with the overuse problems. The ecological analysis deals withwater use, fossil fuel use, mineral use, land use, solar energy, biologicalrenewals, ecosystem functions provided by the atmosphere, for example, andwaste absorption processes.

Let's start with water use. We have two distinct water overuse problems.First, many rivers aren't reaching the sea; they're being overused forirrigation and so on. Second, the fossil aquifers are being pumped out. Someof these problems are larger than state based problems. For example, theAral Sea (in Central Asia) problems are international in their sources. Itcould be suggested that there should be an international Water Authoritythat implements rules for legitimate and illegitimate water uses. If countryA allows its residents to access water for swimming pools while the samewater source isn't allowed to go to neighbouring country B for basic uses,then the Water Authority would have a legitimate role to play.

The subsidiarity principle has a clear role here. It could be regional,but there are also issues of overall water use on the planet. A Global WaterAuthority could regulate sale of drinking water from country to country. Ofcourse this is a complicated, and legitimately controversial matter. In themeantime, we're just looking at the proposals. It's also good to rememberthat whatever we do, there will be real controversies and sacrificesinvolved. If we're overusing the planet, and we want to cut back,inevitably, some people are going to have to give up some privileges.

In regard to fossil fuel uses larger than the renewable energygeneration capacity of the planet, it could be suggested that there shouldbe a global or international Energy Authority, whose task would be to ensuresustainability of energy use on the planet. This, again, is a complex task,and involves calculating the renewable energy amounts on the planet, undercurrent technology, and regulating the production of fossil fuels so thatthey reduce rapidly to the level at which the planet is not overusing itsrenewable energy sources. Yes, this is complex, but, again, we're looking atthe problem.

Similarly, it could be suggested that there needs to be an internationalor global Emissions Authority. Widespread chlorofluorocarbon emissionsproduced the ozone holes, and there was a Montreal protocol signed in 1987to restore the ozone layers. This was a specific treaty based approach inwhat was widely perceived to be an emergency situation. Perhaps there isneed for more than the one shot at a time treaty system. Indeed, for thegreenhouse gas emissions, various ongoing measures, it might be suggested,are required. The treaty system can work in an emergency, but in a situationthat incrementally deteriorates, no emergency may be perceived.

And in a similar manner, it might be suggested, there needs to be aglobal Bioloical Protection Agency. We've already seen what happens to thefish stocks. The reductions have been catastrophic, and they've resulted notonly from state based fishers fishing within their own waters. Rather,what's happened is both in international waters, and in state waters. Theprotection of the biological stocks is an international issue, and should beregulated by a global regulatory body, it might be said.

The waste absorption capacity of the planet is also a truly globalmatter. If we hope that wealthy states will subsidize developing stateswithout any trans-state authority, we may be losing out on an importantopportunity.

In short, although there is a lot more that can be said on this topic,the basic idea is clear enough. The world, according to this viewpoint,needs a series of global authorities, each one of which regulates andmanages global sustainability in its special area. The argument could bethat the calculations are complex enough, the issues are specialized enoughso that separate global authorities are required to manage the resourceextractions, and waste disposals going on in the planet.6. Four integrated global authority systemsAt the same time, we shouldn't ignore a series of other more inclusive waysof going about to achieve what we're calling stable sustainability. We'lllook at four other quite different models for achieving stablesustainability, but each of them has an inclusive aspect that themulti-authority system doesn't have.

The four models we'll look at are a) a state subsidiarity model; b) anindividual human footprint model; c) a planetary ecological potentials anddistribution model; and d) an open corporate market modela) A state subsidiarity modelIn the state subsidiarity model for stable spirituality, there are threebasic ideas: (i) Each large state S (and each collection of small states C)is required, by some globally sovereign body, to be self-sufficient to acertain stipulated degree, based only on internal renewable resources. Toput it another way, a state would need to sustain x% (for example, 60%) ormore of its total resource use (where 'total' includes internal resourcesfor internal use, internal resources for export, external resources byimport, and external resources for value addition and subsequent export)through its own internal equivalent to renewable resources for internal use.That's the main idea.There are some points of detail that might be added. The x number would bethe same for each unit. Also, for a resource to be equivalent to a renewableresource, a calculation is done in what are called global hectares.Ecologists define a global hectare so that oceanic resources, pastureresources, crop resources, forest resources, and so on all can have a singlemeasuring standard. In this way, a measure can also be made of the amount ofoil and gas that would be equivalent to renewable ethanol or methanol, forexample. Also, using the single measure global hectare, a certain percentageof the oceanic resources will be assigned by formula to each state, based onpopulation, productivity, and land area, so that a proportional division ofthe oceanic resources will count in the calculation of the internalresources of a state. There will also be a formula to determine how toclassify imported resources that are then re-exported (usually after a valueadded process) in regard to the amount that should be considered as internaluse. (ii) Every state is required to renew its internal renewable resources inadequate ways. (iii) Further, the sum of the resources used for the y% (always ¾ 1/2 of(100-x)%) coming from outside S or C, must be equal (in global hectares) tothe amount of S's or C's own resources in global hectares that are exportedby S or C to the states outside of S or C but are also renewable themselves,or else equivalent in global hectares to renewable resources actually in Sor C.Note how in this arrangement, the basic subsidiarity principle is preserved.A large country S (or a group C) can legislate as it wishes (or as theywish) for management of its (their) resources. Yet the total of thecountry's (the region of small states') planetary renewable resourceinternal use is not greater than its own renewable resources.To give an example, suppose that we allow special states to group with oneor two nearby states. For example, Japan, Taiwan, and the People's Republicof China could form a unit. Then, say, if 60% of Japan, Taiwan, and People'sRepublic of China's uses of product are from internal renewable resources,then 20% of their renewable resources can be exported, and 20% of globalrenewable resources can be imported into the region. No other exports andimports would be permitted.Of course it would be difficult to figure out how to resolve internaldisputes as to which resources go where, internally. One would need to lookfor negotiation means for resolving these problems. Alternatively, the statebased model would allow Japan, for example, to do worse, by relying only onits own resources. So combining Japan with other nearby countries couldstill be to its advantage. Once again, we're just looking at proposals, andit's important to remember that sacrifices are going to have to be made ifwe want to undo the overusing practices we've gotten into.b. An individual human footprint modelIn the individual human footprint model, special attention is paid to thefact that we can calculate the total human footprint that would be equal tothe carrying capacity of the planet. Divide the carrying capacity of theplanet at a given state of technological development by the number of humanbeings on the planet, and we get the maximum average human stablesustainability footprint, which we can acronymize as the MAHSSuF. In theindividual human footprint model, states (or a transnational unit soempowered by the states) would ensure that every human being does not exceedthe MAHSSuF within a specified up and down range.

Obviously, it would take a lot of work for developed states to gobackwards from three or four or more times the MAHSSuF to the MAHSSuF sothat some of its citizens were, say, at twice the MAHSSuF and others at halfthe MAHSSuF. Similarly, the undeveloped states would need a lot of help inmoving forward to the MAHSSuF. But the system is tantalizingly simple intheory at least.

This proposal may be impossible to take seriously for a variety ofreasons, but for thoroughness­­and perhaps for some extremely long terminterest­­we won't eliminate it at this stage.

c. A planetary ecological potentials and distributions modelIn the planetary ecological potentials and distributions model we areinterested in the fact that there are very different ecological potentialsin different regions of the globe. It seems a little unfair for theresidents of ecologically healthy regions to have huge advantages overothers (as would be the case, for example, in the state subsidiarity model).And suppose it is too difficult to move toward the individual footprintresults. So what might be envisioned is a distribution of the ecologicaldifferences between regions in both equitable and stably sustainable ways.

One way to do this is to have a measure (a ratio) of global hectares toland area for each region of the globe. Any sized region could be used. Thiswould enable one to compare any two regions of the globe in regard thedifference of the two ratios. If equal sized regions of the globe were thenused, one would then be able to measure the ecological wealth differencesbetween the different regions. The total renewable ecological base of theplanet, given current technology, is about 12 billion global hectares. Ifthere were ten equal sized regions of the planet, the difference between 1.2billion global hectares and the global hectares of the region would be therelevant difference.

What would then be developed is a system to allow for, or to encourageevening out of the differences between the ecological bases of the differentregions. Obviously, population differences between the different regionswould also have to be taken into account. If region #1 has a lot morepopulation than region #2, and also has a much larger ecological wealth thanregion #2, then there wouldn't be the same pressure to trade its goods toregion #2 as there would be if region #1 was ecologically wealthier than #2,but population-wise, significantly lower than #2.d) An open corporate based global hectare license modelIn the open corporate based global hectare license model, there would be atransnational unit through which the stable sustainability is maintained.The transnational unit would determine the current renewable ecologicalresources of the planet in a global hectare measure. It would then open abidding process so that, legal persons (and at the moment, of course, thatincludes all corporations and states) can purchase license to trade inglobal hectares. (Wealthy people consume 20 global hectares per year; theaverage human use is 2 global hectares per year. There might be a minimumnumber of hectares per license unit, or it might be just in globalhectares.) The funds from the license could then go to the financing of thetransnational unit that is administering the program and to otherinternational systems like the UN as a whole. Obviously, under this systemthe uses of the licenses by the purchasers of the licenses has to betracked, and there would be significant penalties for trade in goods thatexceeds the license to trade purchased.

So that gives us five authority patterns, each of which squarely facesthe overuse of the planet problem. On top of that we have the non-authorityapproach which partially faces the overuse of the planet problem.7. I've argued that the global overuse problem will not be addressed by a"Let's hope for market and inventions solutions" approach; I've alsosuggested that an "All authority belongs to the states" system work withinternational Pigouvian taxes or subsidies doesn't go far enough. There arerenewable limits that have already been exceeded, and these should be faced,and the sacrifices that will have to accompany the reduction of throughput.We may say that we need a sort of international line to meet. This issomething like what's called The Plimsoll line that helped internationalshipping a hundred and twenty five years ago. Samuel Plimsoll required thatevery ship using British ports have a cargo line painted on the hull. If theline was below water, the ship was overloaded. If the line was at or abovethe water level, the ship was okay.What if someone had said, let there be a voluntary internal system torespect loads of boats and prevent capsizing of boats, and drownings. Soundsgood, but it wouldn't have worked, would it have? It was much better to havea measuring of a line for each boat, a drawing of the line, and a monitoringof its actual use boat by docking boat. Now, too, we need to think aboutsustainability within the renewable resources given our current technologylevels. To implement the Plimsoll line for the 21st cenutry, we have tochoose, then, between a multi-authority approach on the one hand, and on theother, a more inclusive approach, for example, the state based resourceapproach, the individual based approach, the resource over population basedapproach, the license based approach, or combinations of these elementsapproach.

Another factor should also be mentioned. The population levels areclearly important in creating the overuse problem. A large reduction inglobal population would ease the problem for a time, though it wouldn'tsolve the problem over the long term. Even if the population were wealthyenough to be stable in size, there would still be increasing throughput. Thepopulation size factor, then, can't be ignored, but reduction in populationisn't enough either. Also, one would hesitate to suggest that there could bea global authority on population measures. In this case, the oddity is thatthe developed states don't need the extra freedom to procreate, since theirreproduction rate is reasonably low. It's the developing states that wouldtend to resist the limitations. People's Republic of China, however, acommunist state, it is interesting to note, has not. In any case thepopulation factor is something we don't want to leave out.

This brings s to the two points on which I'll conclude. First, it's upto us all to consider the benefits and drawbacks of the three main systems:the voluntary "reduce the overuse" proposals; the multi-authority system;and any of the four inclusive systems or their combinations. Themulti-authority pattern and the inclusive patterns squarely face the overuseissue, but I want to clearly support all of the three main approaches. Weshould note that each of the three requires organizational implementation.World Federalists, then, have a significant role to play in enacting any ofthe three main proposals.

Secondly, what facing the overuse of the planet does for us is to callto our attention the fundamental features of what's important in human life.

What's fundamentally important in human life is not the addition of morecars, more tvs, bigger computers, fancier clothes, and more financialoptions. What's important to all of us is nutrition, shelter, lots of love,good medicine, and celebratory culture. When we set our minds to dealingwith the finite size of the planet and the uses that the large humancommunity is making of the finite planet we allow ourselves to re-think thebasic economic model. We allow ourselves to develop an economics that is apart of the big package. Living healthily, with love and affection, withserenity, in a celebratory culture is what it's all about. Facing thefinitude of the planet enables us to see this as clearly as it can be seen.

It's up to us as world citizens to set in motion the paths that mightlead to a major transition in which the world faces the planet's finitelimits, and in which we can get together to bring about a happier world. Wedon't know if our hopes can be fulfilled. But there's no reason for us notto take the steps that we can take. The path might take ten, fifteen,twenty, thirty, or forty years, and we can't guarantee that what we hope forwill come to pass. But just as the ICC was the big goal for the last fiftyyears, and now it exists, so too, let's set a big goal for the next ten,twenty, thirty or forty years. Let's do what we can to bring about theecological Plimsoll line for the 21st century.

Thank you very much.