Discourse 5:   

18. MORE IS LESS: carbon emissions
16. GLOBALISATION: colonialism and slavery.
11. Globalisation: Environmental Degradation/ BP OIL  /POLLUTION/TIN MINING;  Environmental Crimes, SEPTEMBER 2014.
8.   Unsustainability and Sustainability, June 2012
6.  Globalisation: Cheats, Fraud, Corruption
5.  World Population............7.2 billion, 2015
3.  Tipping Points, Aug. 2011
2.   Democracy is a fantasy. Plutocracy is the reality. Mar. 2011
1. ' Corporate Social Responsibility'.
CSR: tobacco; asbestos; oil; mobile phones.


There are two forms of ‘money’.
First, ‘cash’,  which is printed and minted by governments.

In January 2015 it was calculated that the total global cash in circulation  was  
$1.39 trillion, which is 3% of the total ‘money in use.

For a long time, Governments and their Central Banks have been allowed by law to create                                                    
GOLD coins
money as cash [coins and notes]. For some reason, this is called  QE today: quantitive easing.
They distribute cash  to local banks. The value of  the cash  is  measured  in terms of the amounts                           
in circulation [e.g. too much/inflation; too little/deflation].  In this way governments  control the supply
of  ‘cash’, and the value of the currency.  It is no longer valued against the 'gold standard'.
No-one else is allowed to print money nor mint coins. Those who do so  are prosecuted  for forgery and
Today, the 3% cash in circulation  is to be found in our wallets and purses; even in the mattress :
in ATMs, pay packets, and shops. Banks do promise to pay cash to us on demand via an ATM or cash clerk.
Your local bank will ask the Central Bank for cash by daily/weekly payments. The Central Bank will authorise
the creation of notes, and coins.The amount of money as cash in circulation varies from country to country.
Another key source of cash is Gross  Domestic Product: the income from sale of products by trading All
countries are involved in manufacturing or  farming, trading products,  buying and selling and generating profit.
They depend upon their GDP to provide the cash to pay their debts, as well as to create surpluses with which
to pay for government and corporate projects. January 2015 the World Bank/CIA reports that
$75.6 trillion is the global GDP.

Second, there is ‘digital’ money
which is created out of nothing by  loans from banks/mortgages/building societies/insurance groups/savings and loan companies..  
Today, of  all the monies available to bankers and fund managers
,97% is digital/virtual; 3% cash/coins/notes./gold
The  ‘numbers’  traded every day on  the markets are many trillions in loans/in commodities/ currency exchange/ stock market dealings/ derivatives/ credit default
swaps. It is estimated that more than
$700 trillion is traded. every day as digital money. This may be a $ quadrillion on some days.

During the 1980’s many banks across the world became deregulated, and  devised methods to create new money. Today, financial enterprises operate Fractional
Reserve Banking which literally means that bank deposits need only be a fraction of the monies lent to customers. For example, a  cash deposit of $1000 can be
‘leveraged’ or multiplied by 100 to generate a loan of  $100,000, and the loan deposit of 100,000 converted into $1,000,000; to form the basis of a total loan of
Fractional Reserve Banking enables corporations/companies/governments  to borrow millions  to finance their major projects. The loan creates new money out of
nothing. The debt is a contract to repay the loan money over a specific number of years.

Fractional Reserve Banking is at the core of modern capitalism,  and acts as the driver  for profit and growth. It enables banks to create digital money out of
nothing.  It enables banks to create ‘money’, free of the constraints of the Central Bank. Digital money does not depend upon the cash deposits in banks. Digital
money can be manipulated, created, and  transferred at the press of a  keyboard. Creditors and debtors/ customers, assume that this virtual money,  will convert into
cash.when required These assumptions lead banks to charge fees as if the numbers were cash.  Fractional Reserve Banking is designed to offer loans and  create
new money out of nothing.
What is perplexing is that any $100 million as a loan  does not exist as cash in the bank. The original $1000  cash may be in a deposit account. But the new money
‘exists’ in a ledger and on a computer screen and hard drive as  a statement of account.
It is virtual. It is digital. This money is debt.  It will become  cash in the future  when repayments are made; and when  it is converted by the Central Bank.
We have to acknowledge that the E345 billion given to Greece as a bailout loan was created out of nothing. And only exists as virtual entries in the debtors account.
No cash was transferred from Eurozone accounts to the Bank of Greece.   Today, the concept of ‘money’ is best regarded  as a set of numbers not a pack of notes
nor a bag of coins.
We have to accept that most customers of financial enterprises are convinced that all dealings are ‘in cash’ backed by gold.   But  Banks are lending/spending billions
. that exist in statements as numbers, not hard cash. The amounts available [liquidity] are supervised by the Central Banks.
The next step in this procedure of  loans is that  bank profits are generated from the interest paid on the loans.The bigger the loan, the greater the interest.

The amount of digital money lent has little to do with the amount of cash in circulation.  Bankers and financiers and traders manipulate money numbers on a screen,  
but their electronic dealings take place without regard for the consequences of their trading in numbers for cash/ stock/ commodities markets across the world.  

Even though governments have the right to print money to meet their costs,most use Central Banks to organize and supervise their monies, to avoid inflation and
deflation.  Governments create  cash  but their demands are far greater and so  most countries are in debt. The current disputes about Greek debt are framed as if
Greece was the only country in debt.
National debts can be as high as $18 trillion, as in the USA, with interest payments of $500 billion per year;  the UK, with 1.2 trillion GBP debts,has to meet 43 billion
GBP annual interest. Other countries have large debts: Belgium $1.3 trillion; Japan, $1.5 trillion; France $1.7 trillion;China $1.9trillion; Ireland $1.8 trillion; Italy $2.2
trillion; Germany $2 trillion; Russia $76 billion. In order to pay their current debts the governments choose to contract  more debts to pay debts. and  to reconcile the
credits and the debits; the assets and income with the loans and the interest payments.
January 2015 the BBC reported tha
t the total global debt is $199 trillion: all of which is digital money.
. One of the rules of the ‘money’ game is that debts are paid on time and in full. If this is not possible, debts are to be covered by more debts  loans by more loans,
interest payments by more interest.] Another rule is that the debtor is obliged to reduce costs, and increase income, so as to balance the books and repay the debts.
The debtor has to be supervised, inspected and not to br trusted!

We have been considering  a situation in which the principal sums on loan are digital, and created out of nothing. The lender has made entries on a balance sheet,
and charges the debtor for the completion of the contract. The profits of any financial enterprise are linked to the interest charged on loans.    For example, if a
government or a corporation wants to borrow E100 million for 20 years at 7.5%,  the compound interest will be E424.7 million. The total to be repaid  will be E524.7
million. The borrower has to pay back 4.24 times the original loan.The total to be repaid  on global debt would be $1043 trillion or $1.04 quadrillion.
A country like Greece may borrow E345 billion for 20 years @ 7.5%, and be required to pay back E1.46 trillion. The current disputes are claiming that these totals are
excessive. The new Greek government is challenging this system claiming that the interest charged is intended to benefit the creditor and punish the debtor. The
bailout loans, that were supposed to rescue Greece, will bankrupt the country and destroy the government. The bailout monies could have been. GRANT AID with a
low interest rate within a system of simple interest.
Recently, the USA was at the brink of bankruptcy when the the Treasury was not able to pay the interest of $500 billion on a national debt of $18 trillion. This reminds
us that most  of the 195 countries in the world are in debt and need their GDP, profits and growth to pay their debts!
It would be fairer to adopt a system of simple interest,  whereby the interest is charged on the original principal
The payment of interest would not be seen as a problem for a country such as Germany, USA, or China whose economy was growing by +5%/7%/10% a year. But for
Greece, and many other poor countries across the world, whose economies are shrinking by -7% per year, these payments have become impossible.

In the years following the credit crunch of 2008/9 when some of the biggest banks in the world went bankrupt, and many countries went into recession, and the global
financial system almost collapsed, some alternative strategies are necessary so as to ease the economic pressures on poor countries: that is, most countries in the
world..One solution could be to lower the compound interest rates charged. .Another solution would be to calculate the simple interest on loans  The interest payable
on E100,000,000 @1% simple interest for 20 years would be E20 million. The total repayable would be E120 million.These totals are significantly less than E424
million repayable on a loan at 7.5 %. And all represent significant profits for the creditors on transactions that are trading virtual sums created and deleted at the push
of a button.These transactions are politically significant in circumstances when a government has to raise taxes and to cut all social services in order to repay the
interest on a loan; or when a government, like the USA, has borrowed so much that it can only afford to pay the annual interest, and therefore has to sell off national
assets so as to remain solvent. Governments, such as Greece or Ireland or Portugal or Iceland or Spain or Italy, may have repaid the principal of their loans, but
cannot pay the interest. This interest could be four times the principal! Ireland with a national debt of $1.8trillion is facing interest payments of $7.2 trillion; or Italy, $8.8
trillion interest. These are all inconceivable amounts of money: particularly for countries
 that are barely covering their costs.  Should any government be permitted to
borrow more than it can ever possibly repay? Should any government be permitted to borrow sums at interest rates that will lead to bankruptcy? Should funding
agencies be able to charge punitive interest rates? Should creditors be able to lend money to clients who cannot pay their debts? Should interest rates be variable
according to the circumstances of the debtor?  Should interest rates be capped for everyone, so as to limit the profits of the creditors? Would it be better if all loans
had a fixed fee? How could a regulator stop the debtors and the creditors from taking advantage of any preferential contracts? This leads us to another solution: the
necessity for oversight and regulation. Which organization could be given authority to supervise, regulate, and control the financial affairs of individuals, corporations,
countries? The WorldBank, the IMF, the United Nations, the EU, the AU? among others.  It is not surprising that many clients, corporations or countries, become
unable to repay the sum in total and default.It is clear that none of the funding agencies and their traders care about the circumstances of the debtors. All they are
interested in is the generation of profits and bonuses. It is none of their business that many countries like those in Africa: Namibia, Niger, Sudan, Somalia, Congo,
need loans to pay for foods to feed their starving peoples. The countries want grant-aid, but are driven to loans.that will bankrupt them.. It must be admitted that none
of this would matter, because many countries would be unable to raise enough cash to provide collateral for any loans.So we are faced by a dilemma. How to
structure and regulate a fractional reserve system that does not bankrupt those countries that try to borrow money? How to design a full reserve system which is more
flexible in demands for collateral and assets? On reflection, it seems that banking systems that are intended to benefit the banksters and fundsters, and sacrifice the
debtors, are not socially nor morally justified. They protect the interests of the 1% and control the savings and investments across the world. They are only interested in
peoples and governments who want to borrow money, and pay maximum interest. One can conclude, that any banking system that is totally dependent upon the
generation of profits from the interest on loans, is unacceptable. As we have seen, the calculation of the interest due from poor debtor countries leads to their
bankruptcy. Such loans and compound interest are not intended to alleviate global poverty. They are intended to maximize the profits and bonuses of the banksters


It is argued by Pablo Prieto and Enric Duran,  in ROAR,  that a new cooperative economy needs new money.
I want to argue that a cooperative economy is about the adoption of different financial systems and managing money and companies.It does not need the creation of a
‘new coin’
I  agree that a cooperative economy does lead to  new ways of living, and to manage a financial system for the common good.
Pablo and Enric  propose that a cooperative economy will require us to to create our own monetary system and to decentralise and democratise the economy,
politics, cultures of the world.
A  new cooperative economy will mean that we cooperate and respect each other, and we care and share, locally and globally. We no longer  exploit others for our
own benefits and their disadvantage. It changes our social and economic relations.

Pablo and Enric demand that  a Cooperative system is to be ‘fair’.
A Fair Co-op; an Open Co-op, with a Fair Coin, and Fair Funds. A Fair market in which the  consumers and producers and workers organise ‘exchange’. A Fair Co-
op and Fair Coin develop democratic participation of all members, building up a Fair Co-op eco- system.
A Cooperative system is offered as one that is  in direct opposition to a capitalist system.

All business enterprises comprise  groups of people in association as shareholders, whose relationships are legally defined.
These enterprises can be joint stock companies with joint owners. Or they can  be ‘corporations’ with a charter to act as a single entity, and owned by shareholders. Or partnerships
in which parties agree to cooperate.  Or they can be cooperatives in which the shareholders cooperate for their own mutual benefit. A cooperative is a legal entity owned and
democratically controlled  by all its members [producers.consumers, employees, workers]. All members benefit from the profits of the  of the enterprise.

Efforts should be directed towards making all companies ‘cooperatives’.   The UN declared  2012 the ‘Year of the Cooperative.’ Their surveys, with the ICA, the
International Cooperative Alliance, revealed that there were 1 billion members of Cooperatives across the world. If all members of the Cooperative movement spent
$100 a year/month/day, cooperatives would have access to revenue of $100billion.

When there is little economic growth, there is high unemployment in Europe, the USA, and all other capitalist countries in the G8/G20/G70.   The EU Minister for
Industry suggested in January 2013 that more and more individuals should start up their own businesses rather than depend on finding jobs with existing enterprises.  
It would be a good idea for governments to sponsor more groups and start up cooperatives;  to follow the example of the Yunus group and Grameen Banks, and set
up trust funds to micro-finance programmes; to fund local businesses and to give impetus to cooperative start-ups.

Given that joint-stock corporations enrich their primary shareholding investors, [that is 11 million people out of 7 billion,] and their efforts exploit the resources of the
earth to exhaustion, the only viable future is a cooperative economy.
An aspect of a cooperative economy is that enterprises are developed in the light of local needs. I is unlikely that their efforts will destroy the local environments and
render their lives impossible!
Another aspect of cooperative initiatives is that they involve groups of members,not single entrepreneurs. So whether it be a shop, market gardens, dairy farms,
cereal farms, farm machinery, a public utility like a phone service or internet provider, water and sanitation, clothing and shoes manufacture, cotton farms,and sheep
herds, pharmacies, community schools, medical services; whitegoods, auto-parts like Mondragon; hotels like Best Western; community housing like Coop City in
New York, among many other alternatives, everybody involved buys and sells, offers money, effort, skills, time. Everyone is a member, entitled  to fair shares. The
members of a cooperative work together as a collective, making decisions about the management and organization of the cooperative. One member, one vote.
Cooperatives are designed to satisfy the needs of their members, not to enrich a minority of shareholders nor entrepreneurs.

So how would you go about starting up a cooperative?
The Rochdale Principles are a set of ideals for the operation of cooperatives. They were first set out by the Rochdale Society of Equitable Pioneers in Rochdale, England, in 1844,
and have formed the basis for the principles on which co-operatives around the world operate to this day. The Rochdale Principles focus on co-operative economics.The original
Rochdale Principles were officially adopted by the International Co-operative Alliance (ICA) in 1937 as the Rochdale Principles of Co-operation. Updated versions of the principles
were adopted by the ICA in 1966 as the Co-operative Principles and in 1995 as part of the Statement on the Co-operative Identity:
1. The first of the Rochdale Principles states that co-operative societies must have an open and voluntary membership. According to the ICA's Statement on the Co-operative
Identity, Co-operatives are voluntary organisations, open to all persons able to use their services and willing to accept the responsibilities of membership, without gender, social,
racial, political or religious discrimination.
2. The second principle states that co-operative societies must have democratic member control. According to the ICA's Statement on theCo-operative Identity, Co-operatives are
democratic organisations controlled by their members, who actively participate in setting their policies and making decisions. Men and women serving as elected representatives are
accountable to the membership. In primary co-operatives, members have equal voting rights (one member, one vote) and co-operatives at other levels are also organised in a
democratic manner.
3. Member economic participation is one of the defining features of co-operative societies, and constitutes the third Rochdale Principle in the ICA's Statement on the Co-operative
Identity. According to the ICA, co-operatives are enterprises in which Members contribute equitably to, and democratically control, the capital of their co-operative. At least part of
that capital is usually the common property of the co-operative. Members usually receive limited compensation, if any, on capital subscribed as a condition of membership. Members
allocate surpluses for any or all of the following purposes: developing their co-operative, possibly by setting up reserves, part of which at least would be indivisible; benefiting
members in proportion to their transactions with the co-operative; and supporting other activities approved by the membership. Co-operatives are a form of social enterprise.
4. The fourth of the Rochdale Principles states that co-operative societies must be autonomous and independent. According to the ICA's Statement on the Co-operative Identity, Co-
operatives are autonomous, self-help organizations controlled by their members. If they enter into agreements with other organizations, including governments, or raise capital from
external sources, they do so on terms that ensure democratic control by their members and maintain their co-operative autonomy.
5. The fifth principle states that co-operative societies must provide education and training to their members and the public. According to the ICA'sStatement on the Co-operative
Identity, Co-operatives provide education and training for their members, elected representatives, managers, and employees so they can contribute effectively to the development of
their co-operatives. They inform the general public particularly young people and opinion leaders about the nature and benefits of co-operation.Indeed organising a cooperative
enterprise can be complicated, requiring knowledge of the law, accounting procedures, business planning, marketing strategies, community investment, working a democracy,
resolving differences by negotiation, writing papers and proposals, working with officials, serving on boards of directors, recording minutes of meetings, and decisions. A wide range
of new skills and knowledge are to be learnt.
6.The sixth of the Rochdale Principles states that co-operatives cooperate with each other. According to the ICA's Statement on the Co-operative Identity, Co-operatives serve their
members most effectively and strengthen the co-operative movement by working together through local, national,regional and international structures.
7.The seventh of the Rochdale Principles states that co-operative societies must have concern for their communities. According to the ICA'sStatement on the Co-operative Identity,
Co-operatives work for the sustainable development of their communities through policies approved by their members.These seven Rochdale principles are bought into play in
creating a cooperative venture, whether it be a grocers shop or dairy or corn farm or wheat farm or market garden, a credit union or utility provision. . These seven principles help
make a cooperative different from a capitalist enterprise: with its members working together, and decisions being made together. A cooperative is not focused on making the
maximum profit.It is concerned with providing affordable products to local members.

For any group of cooperators, they must have a good project, that they know could be established and be viable. The members could establish a new cooperative or re-organise
local enterprises as cooperatives, and establish a network of cooperatives, including a whole range of industrial , financial, retail, social services. In fact, there is no reason why any
enterprise could not be organized and operated as a cooperative.
Once the plan for a cooperative has been drawn up, the members must decide about funding. It is essential that all cooperatives are organized as a cooperative democracy - one
member, one vote.There are no shareholders forming boards of directors. There are members forming management committees.It is important for all members to realize that
cooperative enterprises are subject to specific legislation and financial regulation.

Legally speaking, what is a cooperative? It is an organization that is legally owned and mutually controlled by those who make up the cooperative. Members are most often
producers, consumers, or employees related to the enterprise.   While all members contribute initial funding as a membership fee, their power in the enterprise will not depend on
their money donations but on their status as a member. One member, one vote.  It may be that there will be individual investors. But they will not be share-holders,they will be
members of the cooperative.In order to concur with the laws of incorporation, the cooperative management committee will organize the cooperative so that the members will have a
clear picture of objectives, and procedures and purposes. The management structure should enable the enterprise to operate at the lowest costs,by using the skills of the members
and linking with partners as part of a cooperative network. There is no place for a chief executive officer nor a board of directors. The important aspect of the cooperative is that it is
run by the members in committee. What sort of members will there be? organisers, suppliers, managers, customers, workers, investors, lawyers, accountants. The workers and
organizers cannot be expected to work for nothing. They will be paid a fee or a salary for their time, or wages and expenses, as agreed by the unions. Customer members will be
subject to discounts according to how much they spend. Investors, along with all members, will receive a dividend each year linked to patronage, and profits.Given that the profits
are distributed to all members, rather than a handful of share-holders, no one member will become richer than any other members. It is not part of the ethos of the cooperative that
the few benefit at the expense of the many. But the enterprise will have a finance section which keeps a tally on revenue, payments, and dividends.As I have mentioned before, small
enterprises may not require complex support mechanisms. But medium to large corporations will certainly have to develop a business model, a management structure, and support
mechanisms in order to function. Whatever their size, all cooperatives will have to accord with the legal demands.All cooperatives will need the services of banks, not only to lend
money, but also to provide retail services such as deposits, money transfers, creditcards, payments. It is recommended that cooperatives do not use commercial banks, but credit
unions.A Credit Union is a profit sharing, democratically run financial co-operative which offers convenient savings and low interest loans to its members. The members own and
manage their credit union themselves. The three main aims of a Credit Union are:
To encourage its members to save regularly
To provide loans to members at very low rates of interest.
To provide members with help and support on managing their financial affairs (if required).

At this point, it is important to understand that any financial company that is in the business of lending money / providing loans / giving credit /creating debt will be concerned to
create new money. The savings of the members/customers provide the assets that form the collateral that secure the loans. The banks or credit unions or building societies are
licensed to create new money by making credit entries in their customers balance sheets. For example, when a bank or credit union has GPB10 million in savings, it may be entitled
to lend GPB100million, according to the rules of the Central Bank.[At the time of the financial crash 2008, some banks were creating GBP700 million of debt.] These loans are new
money; the new moneey are debts created out of nothing. They exist as digital entries on the corporate balance sheets. Currently, cooperatives, as well as joint stock, corporations
are dependent upon this system of fractional reserve banking to buy materials, and sell products, and pay workers

.How can our cooperatives be environmentally friendly?;
How can cooperatives take care of the environment? First of all, it must be high on the list of priorities and targets of the business plan. Questions must be asked about how the raw
materials are produced? Grown?Processed? Are they being transported half way round the world? Only to be shipped back as finished goods? Does the company discharge waste
materials into local waterways? Does it monitor rates of pollution? Is there any attempt to limit pollution of the atmosphere? Does the cooperative explore the possibilities of
generating and using carbon-free energy? By means of wind power? Solar power? Tidal power? Or if this is not possible,can they control and monitor and ration coal powered
electricity? Oil powered or gas powered generators? Of course, many enterprises do not monitor simply because it is too complicated, and too difficult to do without the efforts of the
government. This underlines that protection of the environment involves a change of mind by all organisations across the world. Cooperative corporations, whether
small/medium/large, will need to examine how they deal with waste products; investigate how their suppliers care for crops and products? These matters will be most important for
dairy farms and creameries, as well as for beef cattle ranches, rice paddies, wheat farms. It is well recorded that cattle generate significant amountsof methane - an element of the
air pollution mix of ozone. It is too often ignored that Agriculture is a primary source of pollution. Animals, crops, wetlands, fermentation, as well manure, add to the pollution of local
waters and ground water, and the biosphere with the creation of ozone, with the mix of methane, nitrous oxide, halocarbons, carbon dioxide. Agricultural cooperatives can be a major
source of greenhouse gases, and need to be monitored and supervised. Many Cooperative enterprises start up as shops and food stores. Today, they could be vegetarian and
encourage local grown products in gardens, allottments, and market gardens. They can pioneer the development of vegan diets and encourage the reduction of meat consumption,
and thereby limit the generation of methane and manure.;Large scale cooperatives like Mondragon produce such things as auto-parts, electrical goods. Other industrial coops
produce textiles, clothes, shoes.Customers have become obsessed with new, fashionable items, from mobile phones to shirts and dresses. Cooperatives could begin to plan for the
use of recycled materials. For example, there is enough iron and steel in the world to provide recycled products. What is more, items can be designed to be recycled rather than
thrown away. At the WEF, Davos, in Jan 2013, they  began to talk about 'a circular economy' in which everything is produced to last and recycled. It is interesting that they have
chosen a new term, rather than confirm the need for a cooperative economy. If a cooperative company does throw products away, where are they thrown? How are they prepared as
waste? Is there any attempt to render products recyclable? ;What is perfectly clear is that our atmosphere is being polluted with greenhouse gases; that our global climate is
undergoing warming, and more extreme climatic events; that our lands are being covered with waste products, and our rivers are being poisoned with sewage and untreated
industrial waters. Cooperatives can be a force for change and the protection of our environments.
At the moment, January 2014, Oxfam has confirmed that we live in a world of capitalist enterprise, in which most people are poor, and where less than 1% of the global population
controls most of the global wealth.1654 people are multi-billionaires, with $4.6 trillion. 12million people have access to $46 trillion out of the total annual GDP of $71 trillion.
.The ICA in their most recent report, 2012, declared that up to 1 billion people are actively involved in cooperatives, with the largest 300 cooperatives generating $1.6 trillion.But this
does not alter the fact that most of the wealth generated by capitalist enterprises, $60 trillion GDP 2011, has greatly enriched a minority,12 million people out of 7 billion.
Cooperative enterprises have not been so successful, and their presence has been ignored. The University ofWisconsin has reported that over the last few years, cooperatives in
the USA have declined due to the running battles between capitalists and socialists where the arguments centre on whether business is for the enrichment of the few or the social
benefits of the many? From the mid-nineteenth century, mutual organisations in Europe tried to embrace the ideas of cooperation and sharing, and taxes and social enterprises as
economic enterprises: firstly amongst trades people, and later in cooperative stores, educational institutes, financial institutions and industrial enterprises. The common thread of
mutuality (enacted in different ways, and subject to the constraints of various systems of national law)is the principle that an enterprise or association should be owned and
controlled by the people it serves, and share any surpluses on the basis of each members' cooperative contribution (as a producer, labourer or consumer) rather than their capacity
to invest financial capital. The cooperative movement has been fueled globally by ideas of economic democracy, a socioeconomic philosophy that suggests an expansion of
decision-making power from a small minority of corporate shareholders to a larger majority of public stakeholders

A cooperative is a legal entity owned and democratically controlled by its members. Members often have a close association with the enterprise as producers or consumers of its
products or services, or as its employees. In some countries, e.g. Finland and Sweden, there are specific forms of incorporation for cooperatives. Cooperatives may take the form of
companies limited by shares or by guarantee, partnerships or unincorporated associations. In the UK they may also use the industrial and provident society structure, according to
the Industrial and Providence Act 1965. In the USA, cooperatives are often organized as non-capital stock corporations under state-specific cooperative laws. Cooperatives often
share their earnings with the membership as dividends, which are divided among the members according to their participation in the enterprise, such as patronage, instead of
according to the value of their capital shareholdings (as is done by a joint stock company). Cooperatives are typically based on the cooperative values of self-help, self-
responsibility, democracy and equality, equity and solidarity.If there are to be fair shares of resources and wealth, the future is to be Cooperative! We will need to return to the ideas
of cooperative socialism .

. The legal definition of a cooperative varies greatly. It is correct that there are many different types of cooperatives.A Retailers' cooperative is an organization which employs
economies of scale on behalf of its members to receive discounts from manufacturers and to pool marketing. It is common for locally owned grocery stores, hardware stores and
pharmacies to be cooperative businesses rather than individuals.A workers cooperative or producers cooperative is a cooperative, that is owned and democratically controlled by its
worker-owners.A volunteer cooperative is a cooperative that is run by and for a network of volunteers, for the benefit of a defined membership or the general public,to achieve some
goal such as a social service.A consumers' cooperative is a business owned by its customers. The world's largest consumers' cooperative is the Co-operative Group in the  United
Kingdom, which offers a variety of retail and financial services. A housing cooperative is a legal mechanism for ownership of housing where residents either own shares (share
capital co-op) reflecting their equity in the cooperative's real estate, or have membership and occupancy rights in a not-for-profit cooperative (non-share capital co-op), and they
underwrite their housing through paying subscriptions or rent. Members of a building cooperative (in Britain known as a self-build housing cooperative) pool resources to build
housing, normally using a highproportion of their own labour. When the building is finished, each member is the sole owner of a homestead, and the cooperative may be dissolved.
This collective effort was at the origin of many of Britain's building societies, which however, developed into permanent mutual savings and loan organisations, a term which
persisted in some of their names (such as the former Leeds Permanent)A utility cooperative is a type of consumers' cooperative that is tasked with the delivery of a public utility such
as electricity, water or telecommunications services to its members. In the case of electricity, cooperatives are generally either generation and transmission (G&T) co-ops
that create and send power via the transmission grid or local distribution co-ops that gather electricity from a variety of sources and send it along to homes and businesses.
Agricultural cooperatives or farmers' cooperatives are cooperatives where farmers pool their resources for mutual economic benefit. Agricultural cooperatives are broadly divided
into agricultural service cooperatives, which provide various services to their individual farming members, and agricultural production cooperatives, where production resources such
as land or machinery are pooled and members farm jointly. Agricultural supply cooperatives aggregate purchases, storage, and distribution of farm inputs for their members. By
taking advantage of volume discounts and utilizing other economies of scale, supply cooperatives bring down members' costs. Supply cooperatives may provide seeds, fertilizers,
chemicals, fuel, and farm machinery. Some supply cooperatives also operate machinery pools that provide mechanical field services (e.g., plowing, harvesting)to their members.
Agricultural marketing cooperatives provide the services involved in moving a product from the point of production to the point of consumption. Agricultural marketing includes a
series of inter-connected activities involving planning production, growing and harvesting, grading, packing, transport, storage, food processing, distribution and sale. Agricultural
marketing cooperatives are often formed to promote specific commodities. Credit unions are cooperative financial institutions that are owned and controlled by their members. Credit
unions provide the same financial services as banks but are considered not-for-profit organizations and adhere to cooperative principles. The UK Co-operative Group includes both
an insurance provider CIS and the Co-operative Bank, both noted for promoting ethical investment. It is most important that cooperative enterprises are owned and controlled by
members, patrons, workers, consumers as well as investors. The benefits and profits of the cooperative enterprise are shared by all those involved, not just the elite investors.I
would suggest that a true cooperative provides services and products at prices agreed by the democratic votes of member-patrons in the light of the democratically agreed returns
on equity capital. Every one with an interest in the operation of the cooperative enterprise is involved in making decisions about practices,products profits, and benefits.
The United Nations declared 2012 the Year of the Cooperative.
The United Nations Year of the Cooperative will express:
CooperativeEnterprises Build A Better World and highlight the key aspects of cooperative enterprises which allow them to fulfill this rule.
Cooperative enterprises build a better world.
Cooperative enterprises are member owned, member serving and member driven
Cooperatives empower people
cooperatives improve livelihoods and strengthen the economy   
Cooperatives enable sustainable development
Cooperatives promote rural development
Cooperatives balance both social and economic demands
Cooperatives promote democratic principles.
Cooperatives and gender: a pathway out of poverty
Cooperatives: a sustainable business model for youth.

Marvin Schaars: Cooperatives, Principles and Practices 1978Frank Groves: Philosophy of Cooperation 1985http://ica.coop www.un.org/en/events/coopsyearhttp://social.un.


27. Can we change the world without taking power?

Recently, in ROARMAG, Professor John Holloway revisited his thesis about changing the world. He recognized the need for change, but he wanted to minimize the role of the state,
and challenge the workings of capitalism. I want to argue that any challenge to capitalism requires the direct role of the State.
What is meant by ‘we’?  All references to ‘we’ are usually directed at the peoples who live in Europe and the United States and/or are part of the systems of capitalism.
Who do I include amongst those who can change the world? Should I include all or some of the 7.2 billion people that live on earth and live in families, tribes, sects, classes, working
groups; hierarchies;communities; neighbourhoods; nations, states, exercising different languages, celebrating different histories, cultures, and religions.What about the tribes of
Amazonia in Brazil?: feeding off the trees and flora; with own languages; unaware of the people who live beyond theforests? or the Inuits of the Arctic who survive on the glaciers?
What about the the millions of refugees, and migrants desperately trying to find a better, safer place to live?   Would these communities want  survival orchange? Would it ever be
possible for them to act in unison ? Of course, it would not be possible to know all these peoples, although I may come to know what their preferences are by means of modern
media. Population maps show us that the world population lives in river valleys, estuaries and coastal lands as well as grasslands and forests. The maps also reveal that most of the
Earth is empty . Yes, it is empty because many lands are unfit for human habitation ;the hot deserts: and colddeserts; the tropical rain forests of Africa, and South America; the
glaciers of Arctic and the Antarctica; and the cold lands of Russia, and Canada.It may be the case that there will be a natural limit on the number of people on earth. But at the
moment it is 7.2 billion,   more than at any time in history.
Can 7.2 billion people change the natural world? When the winds blow at 100 miles an hour; or the rains fall at 50 inches an hour, or the temperature rises to 50c in the summer, it is
clear that we cannot cope with the vagaries of nature. The extreme events destroy our homes and factories and communities. However, over a long period of time, the actions of 7.2
billion people are causing changes in the atmosphere, and the biosphere. As a result of our development of industrial processes and products since 1800’s, we are increasing the
levels of nitrogen, carbon, and methane in the atmosphere, altering oxygen levels, the balance of green house gases, and raising the global temperatures by +2c each year, We are
now being urged by environment agencies to lower the temperatures by changing our behaviour and reducing pollution and emissions. For example, as we have taken to driving
cars,and lorries and increasing carbon emissions, so we will have to stop driving petrol vehicles and reduce carbon levels, and adopt renewable energies such as solar power and
wind power.
What is meant by ‘we’? The UN and many charities estimate that 5 billion people try to thrive and survive on less than $10 a day; among whom are 3,25 billion on $2 a day. 1billion
people are known to starve to death each year, of which many are children.
I live in a world in which the norm is to be poor, and starving.
I live in a world in which it is expected that a minority forms a privileged elite.
In this world the elites exploit, the majority with no shame. They see nothing wrong with paying little for a lot of work; living amongst communities that have little to eat, depending
upon food banks and nowhere to live.
‘We’  are poor and starving; abused and exploited. And ‘we’ are the majority. The central element of global society is poverty! That is, lack of money and resources.Following more
than 500 years of Euro-capitalism and colonialism, it is declared in 2014 by FORBES: Merrill Lynch; Morgan Stanley, the TIMES and other rich lists that 1654 people across the
world are billionaires, in control of $6.4. trillion, amongst 12 million $millionaires who control$46 trillion…..the so called 1%.We consider that money is power; and purchasing power
allows 12.16 million people to influence and control the lives of the other 99% of the global population: what is consumed and produced, what jobs are available, how much money is
shared: money is power.  The World Bank tells us that in 2013, the world produced $85 trillion: most of which went to enrich the 1%. Discussions about wealth always seem to
assume that ;wealth is the norm, and poverty the exception. This is not true.It is true that 12 million rich people form a significant group, but it is less than 1% of the 7.2 billion.
Poverty is the norm.Any debate about who takes control has to accept the fact that most people in the world are trying to survive. Their poverty results in their starvation;
malnourishment; without sanitation; no clean water; subject to disease; inadequate medical care.This evidence indicates that the key social change that must take place to reduce
poverty and attain a fair, just, equal society, is the redistributionof $52 trillion private wealth, and the $85 trillion world GDP.  It is clear that the billionaires and millionaires are not
going to take part in this social change. Government authorities, State agencies, are to be directed, entrusted to redistribute the wealth of the 1% to the 99%.Of course one could
argue that the 99% direct their actions to the removal of the 1654, and the 12 million, [all of whom are known] and confiscate their riches for the benefit of all. This needs to be done
peacefully in democratic parliaments organizing legislation to promote social change. It will only be done if the actors are committed, honest, just, not corrupt.

September 21 2014 will witness the People’s Climate March in New York. There will be the UN Summit on the climate crisis. It is clear that the climate crisis is directly related to the
pollution of the Atmosphere, and the planned destruction of the environment. The UnitedNations has created a body of laws intended to identify the law of ecocide, and prosecute
those who wilfully destroy the environment. Unfortunatelythere is little evidence to show that these laws are being enforced.

Any survey of the actions of mining corporations, logging companies, chemical companies, Oil, and gas groups, in association with governments, and crime syndicates [growing and
making drugs]  will reveal that they are actively involved in the pollution of the environment of the earth. They are environmental criminals committing ECOCIDE and denying all the
evidence, and the accusations! ;Oil Pollution can be seen across the world and the oil companies persistently deny their responsibility, and the consequences.The crime of Ecocide
has been identified recently by the lawyer Polly Higgins. She has been particularly concerned to devise a law for the UN. She wishes to apply the Law of Ecocide to natural events as
well as to humans; to corporations as well as individuals; to those in command and control as well as to those whose defence is that they were doing as they were ordered. .
So what is ECOCIDE ?  It is when human agents are actively involved in the damage, loss, destruction of ecosystems of a given territory to such an extent that peaceful enjoyment
by the inhabitants of that territory has been or will be severely diminished. As the law stands at the moment  abstract agents such as corporations, or syndicates, or governments,
cannot be held responsible for ECOCIDE. Only human agents can be accused,prosecuted, called to account, for their environmental crimes.The International Lawyer, Polly Higgins,
wants to identify all those in command and control of their corporations and to render them responsible for the consequences of their ecocide behaviour , and subject to
investigation and prosecution. I am proposing that Social Ecology should pursue new directions which would lead it to direct action to prosecute/fine/imprison/control environmental
criminals, and clearly identify environmental crimes and support the work of Polly Higgins.  

SOCIAL ECOLOGY AND THE CRIMES OF PEACE AND SECURITY OF MANKIND. Polly Higgins wishes to establish that Ecocide is one of the Crimes against the peace and
security of mankind: crime of aggression; crime of genocide; crimes against humanity; war crimes.Ecocide is a crime of aggression when it leads to the waging of aggressive acts
against communities and territories. For example, recent reports have revealed that gangs of  drug barons have killed indigenous tribes, and destroyed rain forests in Peru and
Ecuador so as to plant many acresof cannabis .Ecocide is a crime of genocide when agents of corporations; syndicates; governments; kill and maim members of indigenous tribes in
the forestsof Brazil, Peru, Ecuador, Indonesia, Malaysia. Genocide results from the planned destruction of environments that support the local communities.This ecocide leads to the
hunger and starvation of the communities.Ecocide is a crime against humanity when tribes are murdered; animals are exterminated; local peoples are tortured and enslaved to
enable syndicates of drug barons, and corporations, to destroy the rain forests and to deport local
communities.  Ecocide is a war crime when civilians are attacked so as to cause widespread damage to natural environments in the territory and to gravely prejudice the health and
survival of  the population.  Ecocide is a crime against the peace and security of mankind.Research into the behaviour of agents of criminal syndicates; soldiers, militants carrying
out acts of war in order to exploit the resources of territories,  has shown that   they will kill, torture, destroy., Attack, plunder, pillage, all those who are deemed to be in the way .For
example, at the moment all these crimes are being committed in the Middle East; in the Ukraine; in North Africa; and West Africa; in the forests ofAmazonia; as well as all those
territories where groups are intent on the illegal exploitation of forests; of minerals; of oil and gas reserves; of animals.
In the future,
SOCIAL ECOLOGY must focus on the discovery of the perpetrators of these crimes, and to promote the peace and security of mankind and protect the exercise of
human rights; to protect and preserve the global environments, and reduce the impacts of climate change.


12. UPDATE: GLOBAL ECONOMICS: Time for Alternative models?

Conservation. Environment. Sustainability. Steady State. Profit.Resources. Exploitation. Exhaustion.Reuse. Recycle. Post Growth. Stability. Use Less.

The World Economic Forum concluded a gathering in Davos, Jan 27 2013.in which there seemed to be an increasing acceptance of the consequences of the exploitation of raw
materials: resources like iron ore, coal, petroleum,timber, fish, will run out, soon, at current levels of consumption;finished goods are consuming iron, steel, aluminium, copper, tin,
rare earth metals, as well as plastics at rates that cannot be maintained.;greater efforts should be made to reuse, and recycle, all products and reduce the system of exploiting raw
materials, producing new products; mass production and constant growth is leading to the destruction of the natural environment.We know that we operate a capitalist system based
on the private ownership of capital goods and the means of production, with the creation of goods and services for profit, capital accumulation, competitive markets, and price
systems. [Wikipedia]During the Forum in Davos the debate about conservation and sustainability and environmentalism, and its implications for global economics, had been
stimulated by the arguments of a number of think-tanks such as the
New Economics Foundation,
the Ellen Macarthur Foundation,
theProduct-Life Institute,
the Bio-Mimicry Institute,
and the Centre for Steady State Economics, as well as
the Post Growth Institute.
In a recent newsletter, The Post Growth Institute argued for Transformative Research. .Amelia Byrne argued that if our assumptions aren't true most of us today have grown up
surrounded by a culture that believes that the earth has an unlimited capacity to provide us with whatever we humans might desire such as more cars, more electronic gadgets,
cheap meat, and so on. Not only that, but we have organized the way that our society works around this belief. The global economy, to which most of our livelihoods are tied, is
based on the assumption that endless economic growth (which usually equals an increase in resource use and environmental degradation) is not only possible,but also desirable
and even necessary. This kind of thinking has led us to think that unlimited capacity is more likely than peak supplies.What if these fundamental assumptions of our society  endless
growth, and endless resources  arent actually true? It seems more and more apparent that continual economic growth is not only not possible, but that we in fact must de-grow (use
less) in order to bring our activities in line with planetary realities. This is a daunting thought because how we currently make our livings, and therefore provide food and shelter for
our families, is often reliant on the economic growth model. Sometimes this reliance is literal, is primary  for example, owning a business that sells luxury goods: the business
prospers the more you sell and doesbetter when people have extra money to spend as a result of economic growth or higher credit limits.This dependency on the growth model can
also be secondary. For example, working for a company, an institution or clients that see the world from within the economic growth paradigm. In this case, one’s job, funding or
income is dependent on the fact that you continue to do your work in a waythat promotes, or at least doesn’t threaten this fundamental faith.Turning our minds to the task. As an
(applied) researcher Amelia Byrne falls into that second category. Presently many researchers are not officially supported in the work they do that is outside of (and challenging to)
the economic growth paradigm. Participating in such research can be threatening to one’s career, whether one works in the corporate world, the non-profit sector, or even the
academic one. What is more, the financial underpinningof the modern university often depends on economic growth. Endowment investments are based on a growing economy.
And, as governments throughout the world are attempting to reduce expenditures in light of tough economic times, publicly funded research money is cut. This further narrows the
scope of research, since research funding becomes increasingly dependent on the private sector.But, what if this wasn’t the case? What if researchers were in fact supported and
publicly encouraged to address the great challenges we face? This possibility isnt unthinkable. Bill McKibben, for example, writes about Cuba ;which was forced away from industrial
farming in the early 1990s with the fall of the Soviet Union  their source of cheap oil. Cuba was able to transition to more-or-less local, organic agriculture in part because of the fact
that the country’s best scientists and researchers started focusing their work on how this could be done, and done better. So, McKibben points to thequestion: what if research
money in the United States started to be put into organic agriculture research rather than industrial agriculture methods as has been the case for the last decades?Or more
generally, what if researchers, in many different disciplines, started putting their energy into addressing post-growth/de-growth questions rather than doing research that supports
the growth paradigm? Where this has happened, there have been attempts to render post - growth more acceptable .The different pressure groups and think-tanks that offer
critiques of the current capitalist economic system have presented concepts of de-growth and environmentalism under different names. For example, the Ellen Macarthur
Foundation at Davos talked about the circular economy: An opportunity to rethink our economic future.  The Ellen MacArthur Foundation report on the Economics of a Circular
Economy invites readers to imagine an economy in which today’s goods are tomorrows resources, forming a virtuous cycle that fosters prosperity in a world of finite resources.This
change in perspective is important if we are to address many of today’s fundamental challenges. Traditional linear consumption patterns(take-make-dispose) are coming up against
constraints on the availability of resources. The challenges on the resource side are compounded by rising demand from the world’s growing population. As a result, we are
observing unsustainable overuse of resources, higher price levels, and more volatility in many markets.As part of their strategy for Europe 2020, the European Commission has
chosen to respond to these challenges by moving to a more restorative economic system that drives substantial and lasting improvements of our resource productivity. It is our
choice how, and how fast, we want to manage this inevitable transition. Good policy offers short- and long-term economic, social, and environmental benefits. But success in
increasing our overall resilience ultimately depends on the private sector’s ability to adopt and profitably develop the relevant new business models. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation’
s report paints a clear picture: our linear take-make-dispose  approach is leading to scarcity, volatility, and pricinglevels that are unaffordable for our economys manufacturing base.
As a compelling response to these challenges, the report advocates the adoption of the circular economy, and provides an array of case examples,a solid framework, and a few
guiding principles for doing so. Through analysis of a number of specific examples, the research also highlights immediate and relatively easy-to-implement opportunities. On the
basis of current technologies and trends, it derives an estimate of the net material cost saving benefits of adopting a more restorative approach; more than $ 600 billion per annum
by 2025, net of material costs incurred during reverse-cycle activities. The corresponding shift towards buying and selling performance and designing products for regeneration
should also spur positive secondary effects such as a wave of innovations and employment in growth sectors of the economy, whilst increasing Europe’s competitiveness in the
global marketplace. Many business leaders believe the innovation challenge of the century will be to foster prosperity in a world of finite resources.Coming up with answers to this
challenge will create competitive advantage.While The Foundation’s first report has taken a European perspective, I believe that its lessons are relevant at a global level. It will not
be possiblefor developing economies to share the developed world’s level of living standards and provide for future generations unless we dramatically change the way we run our
global economy.The Foundation’s report offers a fresh perspective on what a transition path to a circular economy at global scale could look like. It is time to mainstream the circular
economy as a credible, powerful, and lasting answer to our current and future growth and resource challenges.  New Economics Foundation, and the Centre for the Advancement of
the Steady State Economy,[CASSE] promote the concept of theSteady State Economy.The steady state economy originated from ecological economics, most notably the work of
Herman Daly. The steady state economy is often discussed in the context of economic growth and the impacts of economic growth on ecological integrity, environmental protection,
and economicsustainability. Economic growth is generally indicated by increasing gross domestic product (GDP). Economic growth entails increasing population  per capita
consumption, higher throughput of materials and energy, and a growing ecological footprint. The size of an economy may undergo one of two trends: growth or recession. Otherwise
it is stable, in which case it is a steady state economy. Therefore, steady state economy connotes constant populations of people (and, therefore, stocks of labor) and constant
stocks of capital. It also has a constant rate of throughput; i.e., energy and materials used to produce goods and services.Within a given technological framework these constant
stocks will yield constant flows of goods and services. Technological progress may yield amore efficient digestion of throughput, resulting in the production of more (or more highly
valued) goods and services. Conflicts with ecological integrity and environmental protection occur long before a steady state economy is maximized.Neither economic growth nor
economic recession are sustainable; therefore, the steady state economy remains the only sustainable prospect andthe appropriate policy goal for the sake of sustainability.
Rules for a Steady State Economy
Good economic policies strive to achieve societal goals like sustainability and fairness with the least amount of impingement on individual freedoms.Following this principle, achieving
a steady state economy requires adherence to only four basic rules or system principles that are hard to argue with:(1) Maintain the health of ecosystems and the life-support
services they provide.(2) Extract renewable resources like fish and timber at a rate no faster than they can be regenerated.(3) Consume non-renewable resources like fossil fuels
and minerals at a rate no faster than they can be replaced by the discovery of renewablesubstitutes.(4) Deposit wastes in the environment at a rate no faster than they can be
safely assimilated.
Friends of the Earth want to identify a green economy, and develop a sustainable economy. . As an organization, it wants to fight the oppression and exploitation of native
communities, and work for systemic changes that make the polluters pay, and end all subsidies for polluting industries such as coal and iron mining, oil drilling, or fracking, chemical
manufacture of pesticides and herbicides. It promotes a cleaner, low carbon economy, encouraging investment in clean alternatives.
Of course, whatever is said at any World Economic Forum gatherings, the principal corporations such as Shell, Esso, BP, Walmart, Toyota,Volkswagen, Glencore, Apple, Samsung,
Ford, General Electric, operate within a capitalist economy based on annual growth, designed for mass production with low labour costs and economies of scale, generating
maximum profits.This growth business model provides for the accumulation of wealth by an elite, [12 million people] and the poverty of the majority [6.9 billion people].The capitalist
system that has operated for hundreds of years has meant that poverty is normal, and that growth benefits only the owners of capital[based on findings of World Wealth Reports].
Different versions of economic development are all based on different notions of environmentalism, expressing the need to conserve and preserve the environment and the
biosphere, while at the same time maintaining profit levels.A circular economy, explores the possibilities of designing production and industry and products so that they are reusable
with limited waste. Growth is no longer the key to development. The key is a steady state in which products are designed to maintain production levels, and conserve the

Different concepts of  economy.
Circular Economy: an industrial economy that is, by design and intention, restorative and in which material flows are biological nutrients designed to re-enter the biosphere safely,
and technical materials which are designed to circulate at high quality without entering the biosphere; an economy inwhich todays goods are tomorrows resources, forming a
virtuous cycle that fosters prosperity in a world of finite resources.
Ecological economy is based on the interdependence and evolution of human economies and natural ecosystems over time and space. This model treats the economy as a sub-
system , proposing to preserve natural capital.
Environmental economics. This approach undertakes theoretical and empirical studies of the economic effects of national and local environmental policies around the world
The Green Economy is one that results in improved human wellbeing and social equity, reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities.
Sustainable Development: A mode of human development in which resource use aims to meet human needs, and preserve the environment so that these needs can be met now,
and in the future.The Brundtland Commission said: development that meets the need of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
Some politicians will argue that these different economic models will require government legislation and regulation.
Global Socialism may be necessary: it is a system of social ownership of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy with common ownership , and
state ownership This definition assumes that officers of government will look after the environment, and not destroy it.But this assumption is not always wise! There are instances, as
in Brazil recently in which Governments have been directly involved in selling forestry and farmlands to the oil companies or other multi-national corporations.
The International Cooperative Alliance thinks that the future lies with a
Cooperative economy.  An alternative approach is cooperative economics. A cooperative is a company owned and democratically controlled by its members. Its members can be
producers, or consumers or employees of its products and services [ http://ica.coop].

Whatever approach you take, the destruction of natural materials must stop; along with the emission of green house gases. If they are not stopped, the natural environment will be
exhausted, and polluted, and climate change will continue.
Herman Daly declares that in place of the growth economy he would put a steady-state economy. At the moment, we are subject to growth mania -literally not counting the costs of
growth. One of the most popular arguments against limiting growth is that we need more growth in order to be rich enough to afford the costs of cleaning up pollution and
discovering new resources. Economist Neil Jacoby says, A rising GNP will enable the nation more easily to bear the costs of eliminating pollution (1970, p. 42). Yale economist Henry
Wallich makes a similar point: The environment will also be better taken care of, if the economy grows.Kenneth Boulding has for many years been making the point that Gross
National Product is largely Gross National Cost and has never been taken seriously.But most advocates of the steady state accept and proclaim the absolute necessity of limits to
inequality in the distribution of both wealth and income.Indeed, many people who have long favored less inequality in the distribution of wealth on ethical and political grounds have
reached the same conclusion on ecological grounds. As Wallich so bluntly put it in defending growth, Growth is a substitute for equality of income. So long as there is growth there is
hope, and that makes large income differentials tolerable (1972). We are addicted to growth because we are addicted to large inequalities in income and wealth.

Czech, B. 2006. Steady State Economy.
Encyclopedia of Earth. Eds. Tom Tietenberg et al., National Council for Science and the Environment, Washington, DC.
Czech, Brian and Herman Daly. 2004. The Steady State Economy  What It Is, Entails, and Connotes.
Wildlife Society Bulletin 32(2): 598-605.
Daly, Herman. 1991. Steady-State Economics. Island Press, Washington, DC. 286pp.
Daly, Herman and Joshua Farley. 2003. Ecological Economics: Principles and Applications. Island Press, Washington, DC. 450pp.
Mill, John Stuart. 1909. Principles of Political Economy.
William J. Ashley. Library of Economics and Liberty.
Daly, Herman. 2005. ;Economics in a FullWorld.”
Scientific American, September 2005,100-107.
Global Footprint Network. 2009. Data and ResultsWebsite. http://www.footprintnetwork.org.
McKibben, Bill. 2007. Deep Economy: TheWealth of Communities and the Durable Future.Henry Holt and Company, New York, NY.Rockstr;m, J. et al. 2009. ;
A Safe OperatingSpace for Humanity.
Nature 461, 472-475.
World Wildlife Fund. 2010. Living Planet Report.

23. Social Ecology is Social Reform:
May 2014. Economic Unions across the world must support sustainable futures.  Economic Unions must pursue a Social Ecology Manifesto. Humans and all other organisms function
in the biosphere: the blogosphere; the atmosphere; the lithosphere; the troposphere; and the hydrosphere. Ecology is the scientific study of the relations of living organisms with
each other and their surroundings in the biosphere. Ecologists are biologists who describe and analyse the biosphere with a view to explain the evolution of organisms, how they
have adapted to survive, and offer explanationsof their behaviours.
Social Ecologists analyse the impact of human actions upon the biosphere, and offer explanations about the relations between the environment, and all organic species.
Social Ecology is reflexive and normative, offering prescriptions and manifestos about how humans ought to behave in relation to the environment,other species, and all extended
ecological communities, so as to ensure their mutual co-existence.It evaluates evidence so as to devise social, moral, philosophical, economic, ecological, environmental manifestos
in order to identify the principles,policies, and actions that are necessary to protect the environment and enable the survival of all ecological communities in the biosphere inthe
future.  Social Ecology is best regarded as a social science. Social ecological manifestos should be available to any organization, government, or group;from a dictatorship, or a
plutocracy, or a parliament, or a corporation, or a local authority, or a municipality, to any political party.Nevertheless, for some reason or other, Social Ecology has become
associated with particular politics such as anarchy; libertarian municipalism;direct democracy; inclusive democracy; or communalism, or even communism, to the exclusion of all
others. I suggest that there is no valid reason why Social Ecology has been so completely tied to these political perspectives. In fact, to do so has led it into a dead end! Today, most
organisations are hierarchies. Nation States are plutocracies even those parading as democracies. All states and corporations are actively involved in capitalism, and state socialism
has failed. Most people in the world live in large cities with little sense of community. Mostpeople, that is 7billion out of 7.2billion, are poor and uneducated, struggling to survive.Does
all this mean that there is no place for Social Ecology? On the contrary, it is most important that all these groups pay attention to, and enact, a Social Ecology manifesto.We must be
actively concerned with protecting the environment, nature, blogosphere, biosphere; and learning how to organize our societies so that we can thrive where there are limited
demands and no growth. The recent European elections witnessed the emergence of Nationalist politics, and the emphasis on growth, and the associated employment of local
people to the exclusion of immigrants. The electorate was returning toright wing politics and rejecting the manifesto of the European Union. The MEPs have forgotten about the need
to negotiate, persuade, discuss issues with their electorate .The European Union must commit itself to a Social Ecology Manifesto.Humans have walked the earth for less than
200,000 years - a relatively short time in comparison to the existence of the biosphere. From 7000BC to 2014AD, humans have grown more numerous, and developed tools and
processes to enable them to reconstruct the environments in thebiosphere. It is true that they suffer from the catastrophes of nature: solar flares, earthquakes, volcanoes, typhoons,
tornadoes, cyclones,monsoons, ice and snow storms, floods, forest and grass fires, and diseases like malaria, but are better able to protect themselves and predict the events.After
1800AD, humans began to manufacture tools of mass construction and destruction which enabled them to mine coal, iron ore, limestone;cut down trees by the thousand; grow
wheat, corn, barley, rye, rice on thousands of acres - in fact, to completely transform the biosphere; or to be more precise, to completely destroy nature!As a result of these
endeavors the global population of humans has risen to 6.87 billion, reaching 7.2 billion, May. 2014; and is predicted to rise to9 billion by 2050, in response to the more efficient use
of water and the creation of new plants for food.As a result of their industrial activities, humans have become a threat to the survival of all living organisms. Human communities are
no longer committed to the mutual coexistence of living organisms. They are actively involved in the destruction of other living organisms so as to ensure thesurvival of homo
sapiens. Nevertheless, in the near future, some humans will face extinction because of the lack of drinking water; and others willsuffer from pollution, and global warming.Many
writers have argued that in order to make an impact on water shortages and world pollution, all societies will have to work together. If theworld is to survive as an 'eco-system' and be
sustainable, we will all have to act together. Every individual and every government will have to agreeto take specified actions designed to reduce pollution and global warming. The
peoples and all other organisms of the world form an extended ecological community within complex networks, and humans must pay attention to their interdependence if they are to

Development, Conservation and  Environmentalism mean that we should share the resources of the globe  so that we all achieve a satisfactory sustainable standard of life
It means caring and sharing. The nature of our interdependence is such that the greed of some brings about the hunger of others.In order to secure the greatest happiness of the
greatest number, we must act in consideration of all others. The warnings are all around us fromscientists, activists, and, increasingly, from our personal experiences of climate
catastrophes with flooding, droughts , forest fires, tornadoes,hurricanes, species extinction, and other natural disasters. Social Ecology
indicates that in order to protect the environment, and expect a sustainable future, we must make different choices and alter our behaviour our lifestyles, our economics, our notions
of self; our cultural filters, our priorities, our morality. These changes will require us all toanalyse our mindscapes, our cultural filters. Roszak (1973) argues that what is important in
the examination of people’s mindscape is not what they articulately know or say they believe. What matters is something deeper; the feel of the world around them, the sense of
reality, that spontaneouslydiscriminates between knowledge and fantasy .Pepper (1989) states that: It is of prime importance for us to study the real and tangible
physicalenvironment, how different groups and individuals perceive that environment and the nature of the ecologically, socially and culturally based presuppositions which colour
these perceptions, or as some express it, the cultural filter. This means that we have to think and act, locally and globally. Concern for the environment, conservation, development,
and ecology are not only about nature, they are calling for social changes: the development of a social ecology, according to which we realize that we are interdependent and
connected to each other, as part of complex networks in the biosphere.Social Ecology is the study of human behavior in the biosphere;concerned with Development, Conservation,
Environmentalism, Sustainability, and Subsistence, in order to foster extended ecological communitiesin the biosphere.It will study political systems, and economic issues in the
municipality, the city, the factory when they challenge the viability of the biosphere;the identification and analysis of the problems caused by human behavior in the biosphere;the
development of solutions to the problems caused by human behavior in the biosphere;the formulation of social practices that will ensure that humans live in mutual coexistence with
all living organisms;the formulation of social policies and practices designed to allow all humans to survive and thrive in relation to all living organisms;the development of systems of
governance, [social, political, economic] that will enable human communities to take decisions that promote the mutual co-existence of all living organisms in the biosphere;the study
of the ways in which humans exist in cooperation with each other, and with other species, for their mutual benefit as an extended ecological community.the study of biological
entities, with various traits, that choose different, unpredictable behaviors in order to adapt, evolve, survive, in the faceof threats to their survival. will be concerned with behaviors
and systems in the municipality, the city, and factory, as aspects of humans in the biosphere;Social Ecologists will study human behavior and climate change;the emission of
pollutants and gases;the exploitation and destruction of forests, and grasslands;the exploitation and mining of oils, ores and minerals;the destruction of species.They will formulate
policies and practices to help conserve the biosphere.They will identify alternative systems of economy and politics in order to ensure that humans live in mutual coexistence with all
living organisms. Social ecologists recognize the role of humans in the destruction of the environment and the consequences of capitalist  enterprise to the exploitation of natural
resources. They propose policies and practices that preserve the environment, and do not poison the biosphere.They draw our attention to the facts that we are responsible for the
pollution of nature.They urge governments to move towards a sustainable economy based on subsistence, conservation and preservation.They devise models of a steady state
economy which will stabilize consumption and growth. They emphasize the need to care and share, and for communities to provide welfare for the benefit of all by redistributing
wealth. Such a manifesto would lead to significant social change whether it was adopted by local or central government, direct or participatory democracy,hierarchical or non-
hierarchical organizations.To be relevant to our present lives, it has to be available to all organizations, bureaucracies and democracies.

The purpose of these UN conferences is [1] to stop the 2C rise in global temperature,[2] to reduce Green House Gas emissions,[3] to provide support for loss and damage,[4] to
finalise plans to deal with the impacts of climate change.
With reference to
UNFCCC[Climate Change Secretariat];
International Institute for Sustainable Development; November 2013.
World Meteorological Organisation.

The realities of climate catastrophes had beenclearly illustrated in the experiences of thePhilippines: in 2012 they were ravaged by TyphoonBopha; in 2013 by Super Typhoon
Haiyan,causing incalculable damage to farms, villages, towns and cities.Scientific experts confirmed that climate change was evident in those parts of the world suffering floods,
droughts, storms, typhoons, temperatureextremes, rising sea levels, melting ice caps.The World Meteorological Organisation reported that 2013 was among the warmest years on
record.The various reports, by observers of the proceedings of the November Conference indicated that despite these global realities the delegates inWarsaw seemed to have little
resolve to tackle climate change. Indeed some delegations were so upset that they went on hunger strike, and others walked out. Those NGOs assembled in Warsaw organized
demonstrations and protests, urging the 190 participant countries to get their plans sorted out, and commit funds to provide support for loss and damage.Financial issues were
thorny; Serious differences emerged between the developed and developing countries.The delegates from the developing countries asserted that pledges made were inadequate,
and that in fact monies in the Green Climate Fund had declined.Loss and Damage issues were apparent. The essence of climatic events is that they occur at random, and the loss
and damage suffered is unavoidable. But the issue is how to pay ? How is the Philippines going to recover from the SuperTyphoon Haiyan? It was observed that developing
countries suffered the greatest damage from climatic events, were the poorest, unable to generate the funds to rebuild their societies. It was agreed that the developed countries of
the USA, the EU, the Russian Federation, should provide the developing countries with financial support. But the arguments over the whole of the Conference was whether the
funding should be 'commitments' or 'contributions'.The final Warsaw agreement requested developed countries to provide developing countries with financial support. There was no
commitment tocontribute to the Green Climate Fund.There was disagreement about the development of market approaches to economic growth. The developed countries insisted
that developingcountries expanded their capitalist markets to encourage growth and wealth. Many of the countries in Africa, South America, Central America, SE Asia, wanted to
pursue socialist economies and focus on the welfare of their citizens. These political differences made it very difficult to reach agreement, and consensus, and underlined the need
for the UN to pay greater attention to the politics of climate change, and conservation. In the face of all the disagreements, differences, protests, and walk-outs, the progress on
reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation[REDD] was welcomed by the organizing committee. It must be accepted that forests are sinks absorbing green house gases,
and every deforestation allows the dispersal of gases into the atmosphere. Forests are a key element of climate control. It was noted in the conference reportsthat many countries
had initiated their own REDD projects, and were unwilling to abandone them to cooperate with the UN. The POLAND Conference raised the issue as to whether the UN Framework is
able to respond to the urgency and consequences of climate change.While communities in the Philippines and Pakistan were being overwhelmed by climate catastrophe, delegates
in Poland were arguing about procedures and consultations and funding. Other delegates were playing games about emission targets. Japan, for example, finally committed to
emission reduction targets of 3%. Observers reported that given  the base year was 1990, Japan should have declared 6% reduction. Their declaration in 2013 meant that in fact
they were producing higher carbon emissions.It was clear that in Poland there was a lack of political will to move forward and find solutions. Participants left Warsaw determined to
prepare for the2015 conference.The truth is that climate change continues and we all have to face the consequences.The final press release noted that developed countries had
been asked for contributions to the Green Climate Fund, and that the USA, the UK,Norway, and the EU, Sweden, Japan, South Korea had made pledges worth $280 million to help
developing countries to reduce Green HouseGas emissions. 48 of the poorest countries finalized their plans to deal with the impacts of climate change, ready for implementation by
2015.The UN established a Climate Technology Centre and Network [CTCN] to provide advice and assistance to developing countries, and encouragemore countries to stop the 2C
rise in temperature.

In March 2014, the IPCC [the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] explicitly declared that the global climate system is warming as a resultof human interference. This
declaration simply confirmed what environmental activists had been claiming for some time. The declaration providedofficial approval for the demands for environmental policies by
the countries of the UN.During the 20th century, the atmosphere and the oceans have warmed; the sea levels have risen; and greenhouse gases increased.Ocean warming is the
most dominant process, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated during the period 1971 - 2010. This warming has led to the Greenland, and Antarctic ice sheets
losing mass; and the global sea levels rising more in the last 100 years.In the atmosphere, the levels of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide are greater than in the last
800,000 years. The absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans has led to increasing acidification.The researchers of the IPCC acknowledge that some of these changes are due to
natural causes such as volcanic activity, but there is overwhelming evidence of human influence on the climate system. Temperatures of the atmosphere and oceans are rising.
Changes in the global water cycle have led to reductions in snow and ice: and increases in flooding, and drought. Large areas of the world have become uninhabitable. Global sea
levels are rising. Greenhouse gases continue to increase in response to the rising use of fossil fuels. Shifts in wind movements result in seasonal changes in temperature
distribution and rain patterns. The IPCC reported thatcarbon pollution from automobiles had lowered significantly, but they asserted that it was still important to reduce the use of
cars and lorries.What is disturbing for politicians is that the Report made it clear that the current accumulation of heat in the oceans guarantees the climate changes for the rest of
the century. Even if there were substantial reductions of greenhouse gas emissions now, the energy stored in the oceans will result in a 2C+ global temperature change beyond
2100. Heating of the global oceans will affect ocean circulation. Arctic sea ice cover will continue to shrinkand thin. The evidence made it clear that human intervention in the past will
have climatic consequences for the present and future. The climate changes that are in progress will lead to further changes in the future. The increasing temperatures of the upper
levels of the oceans will result in the rising temperatures of the lower atmosphere, and alterations in the patterns of rainfall. It is essential for the United Nations to make all 196
member countries to take action to limit air and water pollution.

If we accept that human intervention is the cause of climate change, then we must recognize that human behaviour has to change. The increase in CO2 and methane emissions is
the direct result of human enterprises, in the form of generators, furnaces, engine combustion.The EC Joint Research Centre have recently presented a report in collaboration with
the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency looking at the trends in Global CO2 Emissions.[November 2013]The report makes it clear how difficult it is to identify such
emissions and how to present findings that tell governments and corporations what isgoing on in terms of the pollution of the atmosphere, and creation of climate change and global
warming. The researches indicate that while CO2emissions are at their highest level, there is evidence that the levels are lower in the developed world; [that more is less.]The trends
are based on measurements taken in 2012. The actual global emissions were 34.5 billion tonnes, which was an increase of 1.4% over 2011, but was significantly less than the
annual increase of 2.9% since 2000. [more is less].The report noted that there was a global shift to more renewable energy, and increased energy saving along with less intensive
fossil-fuel activities:oil gas, coal.The report did not focus only on global trends, it also told us about regional developments. CO2 emissions increased in China [6.3%], India [7%],and
Japan [6%], and decreased in the USA [4%], the EU [1.6%], Russia[1%].The increases in carbon emissions in China for 2012 did represent a decrease compared to the 10% annual
growth since 2000. This decrease was the result of the reductions in the generation of electricity from coal, and increases in the use of  hydro-power.The decrease in carbon
emissions in the USA is the result of the use of more gas [shale gas]. The decrease is significant, given that the USA has the highest emissions levels in the world!The decrease of
emissions in the 27 countries of the EU are the direct result of  the economic recession and the reduction in the consumption of oil and gas.The report concluded that while there
was a global shift from the use of coal to gas, to bio-mass, and the development of carbon capture systems,there was a decrease of nuclear power in the face of the Fukushima
disaster.It was noteworthy that renewable energy from hydropower, solar panels, wind mills, and bio fuels was increasing, at last ! Will there be continuous decreases in CO2
emissions over the next decade?An important step is for the increasing use of gas: shale gas , LNG.High prices of coal and gas will effect the fuel mix of public utilities.A prolonged
recession in the EU will reduce the use of fossil fuels.A change to a service based economy in China will reduce the production of electricity by coal.Whatever is happening to the
levels of carbon emissions, the particles of carbon dioxide continue to rise. In 1990 there were 355particles of CO2per million particles . In May 2013 this had increased to 400 ppm..
Ted Trainer, of the University of New South Wales, in his analysis, published in The International Journal of INCLUSIVE DEMOCRACY,(October 2008) argued that once the
concentration of carbon dioxide and other gases has reached 450 parts per million, the greenhouse problemcannot be solved without large scale reductions in the volumes of
economic production and consumption.He asserts that the greenhouse problem cannot be solved within a society committed to free market capitalism and affluent living standards,
maximum levels of economic output, and economic growth. Ted Trainer, has been arguing for half a century that consumer societies are fundamentally unsustainable. He argues
that the alarming greenhouse/ energy/ equity problems now threatening us cannot be solved within any capitalist/consumer society but require a vast and radical transition to very
different economic, political and value systems and structures. A simpler way is the only way forward. We must drastically reduce economic production and consumption. Is it
possible to stop climate change and environmental pollution if we stop the emissions of heat trapping gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane?
A report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as presented in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, January 2009, proposes that it is too late
and that it will not be possible to stop climate change and environmental pollution. Many people who worry about global warming hope that once emissions of heat-trapping gases
decline, the problems they cause will quickly begin to abate. Now researchers are saying that such hope is ill founded, at least with regard to carbon dioxide. Because of the way
carbon dioxide persists in the atmosphere and in the oceans, and the way the atmosphere and the oceans interact, patterns that are established at peak levels will produce
problems like inexorable sea level rise and Dust-Bowl-like droughts for at least a thousand years.According to this view, the damage has already been done!

De-colonialism/de-globalisation are essential for the future development, prosperity, and freedom of the indigenous peoples of the so calledThird World of developing countries.
The richest countries, as represented by the G8, and more recently the G20, and the multinational corporations that drive 'free market capitalism',have exhausted most of the
resources of the 'developed world', and are now looking everywhere else for new sources of key materials. This capitalist development is the exploitation of resources and materials,
as well as the indigenous communities, so as to gain maximum profits for shareholders andcorporations in their home country.
Globalisation and development and colonialism and slavery, are strategies of capitalist intervention by these countries and corporations for the benefitof shareholders, not the
world's poor! Capitalist enslavement and colonialism have resulted in the dislocation of communities, the imposition of colonial inequality, the perpetuation of long term debts, as well
as the permanent failure of cooperative partnerships.
The peoples of Africa have suffered brutally at the hands of European invaders for more than five centuries. A massive slave trade helped toundermine community development and
depopulated Africa’s coastal regions. Millions of people were forced to live without any rights, wages, nor any land and family in America, and the Caribbean. In the nineteenth
century, the slave trade was replaced by direct colonial rule leading to a century of exploitation by European imperial powers, which left very little behind in terms of education,
health care, and physical infrastructure.During the Cold War politics of the twentieth century, many African countries found themselves to be battlegrounds in a global ideological
strugglebetween capitalism and communism: what could be called ideological colonialism .It is not surprising therefore that most of the countries in Africa are poor and indebted and
bankrupt. For example, the World Bank identifies Benin,Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Republic of Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo,
Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana,Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia asamong
the 40 most heavily indebted poor countries in the world , with very low domestic saving and low rates of market-based foreign capital inflows. There is little in Africa’s current
dynamics that promotes an escape from poverty. Furthermore, given that most of the world’s population is poor, thereis little hope that the peoples of Africa, many of whom are on
$1.25 a day, will gain an acceptable standard of living.
Today, some people, in Washington, and London, and Paris and Berlin and Beijing still argue that the moral thing for rich countries to do is to re-colonise Africa for its own good,
providing qualified people from other countries to be in charge, until the Africans are ready to take over. This is a call for a return to Imperial colonialism. Such a call for neo-
colonialism is an expression of the rampant and persistent racism that has condemned the peoples of Africa to exploitation, slaveryand colonialism over 500 years. The difficulties
confronted by these ex-colonial countries are more to do with exploitation and enslavement and racism than to do with community incompetence or lack of resources. Ethics World
informs us that often the local communities of indigenous peoples do not benefit from any capitalist projects, because the labour is imported, and all the profits are directed to the
home office. Greenpeace has revealed thatcompanies working in the poorest countries in the world take great pains to avoid paying taxes and fair wages.Something new is needed.
The African Union has been negotiating deals and projects with China .Unfortunately, at the moment, the Chinese authorities are adopting a typical 'colonial' stance by providing the
money, the workers, and the administrators for any project such as the new AU headquarters in AddisAbaba. It is important that the Chinese investors realise the need to provide
opportunities for employment and administration for the African workers, not the imported Chinese workers in Africa.The New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), an
agency of the AU, proposes that in the future, there is a critical need for deepening regional integration and investments in cross-country transport, energy, and communication
infrastructure. Individual countries do not have the resources to develop such projects. They must cooperate and negotiate to devise plans, obtain materials, technology and
interest-free funding, inorder to take new initiatives.
The countries of Africa may have been colonized by the UK, France, Spain, Belgium, Portugal, Italy, Holland, Germany but they have not benefited, and remain among the poorest
countries in the world with limited social resources. The native peoples have been subjected to virulent diseases fromEurope of the type directly transmitted between humans (
HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, measles, syphilis, influenza), or transmitted by intermediate hostssuch as rats, bearing bubonic plague and mosquitoes carrying malaria. Jeffrey Sachs of
Columbia University proposes that colonial domination frustrated long-term economic growth of the colonized regions through several mechanisms, such as the relative neglect of
key public goods,especially primary education and primary health care of the indigenous populations; the suppression of higher education among the colonized population; the
creation of oppressive political mechanisms such as forced labor and head taxes to extract resources from the local population; andthe active suppression of local industry in favor
of cash crops and extractive industry.
Anup Shah, [www.globalissues.org] suggests that the scramble for Africa in the 19th century disrupted the creation of communities and countries.Artificial borders were created by
Imperial Europe at the 1884 Berlin Conference simply by drawing lines on a map. These artificial boundaries created by colonial rulers had the effect of bringing together many
different communities that had little in common, and separating those who had everything in common! And thereby laying the foundations of many conflicts that disrupt Africa today!
Colonial administrators started to take control of the new colonies, and settled to form dominant European minorities. Of course, local people were attracted to help these
administrators by creating claims to power, and promoting the interests of their own families. It is not surprising that the struggles to build local communities, and efforts to raise
levels of prosperity for all, are proving difficult after many years of slavery and colonialism, betrayal and collaboration with the colonialists.
The Centre of International Development , Columbia University indicates that in the post-colonial age, the rich countries, including those colonialpowers such as UK, France,
Germany, have often used their majority vote within the International Monetary Fund to impose draconian adjustmentson poor debtor countries. For twenty years, many of the
poorest tropical countries have had insolvent governments, burdened by un-payable externaldebts. The international system has delayed or blocked the obvious solution: debt
cancellation of past loans, and low interest on new loans. Thepolicy of high interest loans has contributed to continuing low growth and instability in the so-called Highly Indebted
Poor Countries, the extremely poor and highly indebted countries that are subject to special scrutiny and policies of the international creditor governments. Corporate Watch
regularly reminds us that the prosperity of ex-colonies continues to be hindered by corruption and illegal practices by corporations, as well as by institutions of government.
The continent of Africa is rich in resources and minerals. But its peoples remain poor and indebted. Many other countries and corporations want access to the riches, but do not
want to pay a fair price. They use their racism as the excuse for the exploitation of the lands and peoples of Africa!  'Development' must become a socialist strategy for the
alleviation of poverty, not a capitalist strategy to line the pockets of the rich!  A report by Transparency International [Feb 2009] revealed that these corporations and their agents
are busy corrupting their customers for preferential terms on multiple projects. For example, in Southern Asia and parts of Africa the shortages of water to drink, and for sanitation,
for thepoor are not caused by the lack of water resources, but by unfair distribution of water supplies to the wealthy as a result of bribery and corruption over water projects.
The wealthy corporations, and individuals, spend their time and money increasing their own advantages. They are not interested in alleviating poverty.The Democratic Republic of
Congo, once known as Zaire, is probably the richest country in the world in terms of natural resources; it is the only countryon earth that houses all elements found on the periodic
table. As such, it is persistently a site of fierce exploitation. The Congo possesses over 80 percent of the world's reserve of coltan and has vast amounts of cassiterite (tin ore), gold,
wolframite, pyrochlore, diamonds, clays, copper, cobalt, gas, nickel, oil, tungstone, zinc, iron, kaolin, niobium, ochre, bauxite, marble, phosphates, saline, granite, emerald, monazite,
silver, uranium, platinum andlead. Over the last 150 years, since Belgian King Leopold’s conquest in 1885, the Belgian Congo has been subject to vast and destabilising
resourceexpropriation at the hands of European capitalism. This exploitation still continues to this day. The Democratic Republic Congo is suffering from a war,often referred to as
Africa's World War: that is almost certainly the worst in the world, leading to the death of 5.4 million people. This war is largely the result of the exploitation of the DRC’s rich
resources by foreign corporations, which fund 'warlords' from the DRC and surrounding countries, and the army, to give them access to cheap minerals. The war and exploitation in
DR Congo, principally at the hands of the imperial powers of Europe and theUnited States is trul
13. How is economic growth sponsored? Who determines the patterns of
environmental exploitation?

I am not an economist, but I am concerned about the consequences of the ways that capitalists promote economic growth, and exploit the environment. Money [as cash or digital
entries] is exchanged in the production and sale of goods as part of economic growth. Economic growth is measured as gross domestic product: a statement of the value of
manufacture and sales of products by enterprises in every country across the world. In 2012 global GDP was $71 trillion.Any national GDP is taken as a statement of the size of a
national economy. In 2012, the largest is $15.8 trillion in the USA; $8 trillion in China;$6 trillion Japan; $3.5 trillion Germany; $2.4 trillion in the UK.GDP may be seen as national
income. It can only be regarded as growth if the income exceeds expenditure. In this way, growth is sponsored by gross domestic production. When there is a surplus, a country is
judged to be growing. When there is a deficit, then the country is subject todepression or recession, and even bankruptcy. At the present time, many countries are subject to deficit,
and have to look elsewhere for sourcesof money.In times of decline, deficit, or depression how is growth possible?Many people, including myself, think that money is created by the
exchange of services, facilities, products, labour for tokens such as currency/coins/notes. The growth of an enterprise depends upon the availability of finance for production,
transport, marketing, advertising.But this begs the question as to where the currency comes from in the first place?During 2012 it has become much clearer that new money is
created and printed by the Central Banks of countries, and given value by means of Quantitative Easing. The Central Banksand governments, decide how much to print. In the UK,
the Bank of England has created GBP375 billion in the system. The US Federal Reserve, and the European Central Bank, have been doing the same: the Fed has created $1.02
trillion, the ECB printed 500 billion euros. The Bank of Japan has been printing money without limit so as to stimulate inflation in an attempt to put a stop to 20 years of deflation: in
2012, 50 trillion yen, with plans for 91 trillion yen in 2013 [15 times the GDP].This new money is not a product of bank deposits nor savers deposits nor exchange of products. It is
created out of nothing: it is printed. Initially, this new money goes into banks as equities. The Central Bank invests in the stocks and shares of commercial banks. It is intended that
the funding converts into lending and business investment, and economic growth. In the UK, the current plan of the government is to expand funding for lending. Accordingly, named
banks are given funding so as to increase their lending to enterprises to enable growth to occur. In this way, growth is sponsored by the printing of new money. It does not always
work as the banks hold onto the new money, keeping it as capital.It is clear that GDP generates more money than Central Bank printing. But, production by corporations, as well as
the creation and development of small or medium enterprises, relies upon business loans from commercial banks. For example, Corporations may offer up collateral worth $1 million,
and apply to borrow $70 million from a commercial bank. Commercial loans [debt] are money created by banks [credit] and form most of the money in circulation. The amount of a
loan is more a product of the banks trust in the corporation and is a statement of their business relations. The policies of the government can sponsor the growth of an enterprise.
These loans are not based on savings. They are based on the business confidence of the commercial banks. Any corporation that is totally trusted by its bank, and is judged to
have enough collateral assets, can borrow any amount from thebank. In this way, growth is sponsored by commercial loans: money that is created from nothing. It is worth noting
that many projects, leading to the exploitation and destruction of the biosphere, are sponsored by commercial loans as part of economic growth.In these ways, we now know that
growth and exploitation are made possible at the whims of the banks and bankers and their demands for profits and bonuses. The more a bank lends, the more money is created,
the greater the profits, the larger the bonuses. Clearly, banks and bankers have incentives to destroy the environment, and protect their wealth!

11. Globalisation: Environmental Degradation
LUKOIL, BP, SHELL, ESSO, APPLE, SAMSUNG, LENOVO, NOKIA,GLENCORE are among the major corporations in the world, producing large profits from many products. While
their adverts, particularly those on BBCWorld, acknowledge their leading roles in the production of products that are at the leading edge of technology, none of them acknowledge
the ways in which their operations are instrumental in the destruction of the environment! It is clear that all of them depend upon the exploitation of the raw materials, from oil to gas
to coal, to iron ore to tin to rare earth metals like Scandium,Yttrium, Lanthanum, Cerium, Promethium and so on, that are essential to their operations. Each of them require the raw
materials, and are actively involved in their exploitation. However, increasingly they are presenting their mobile phones, their tablets, their smart phones, their laptops, their PCs,
their searches for energy, as attuned to the demands for the care of the environment and the conservation of ecology. On the other hand, the Friends of the Earth are developing a
campaign to make a better world. They are determined tomake these companies, and all the other multi-national corporations, to recognize their roles in the destruction of the
natural environment!
A significant amount of tin is mined on Bangka Island, both legally by government
licence, and illegally by fishermen and farmers. These mines are not  involved in the conservation of Indonesia. They ravage the forests,destroy the coral reefs, pollute the coastal
environment, and destroythe fish. The open cast mining injures the miners and ruins the fishermen. This picture does not match the images currently presentedby the Indonesian
government in their adverts of  remarkable Indonesia. We have to be increasingly aware that those agents that are actively and consciously destroying the environment, and
warming the globe, are at the same time creating images of their concern for, and care for, the environment. New environmental campaigns must take account of the cynicism and
deceit of the main protagonists, and get them to declare their involvement in the destruction of the biosphere. As David Attenborough declared on Jan 22 2013, it is humans that are
'the plague' of the earth, exploiting all resources to exhaustion!

Monday Feb 25, 2013,BPs high-stakes civil trial began in New Orleans. BP claims that it was ready for disaster, and complied with all regulations, and was not negligent!
The Los Angeles Times reported that lawyers said that energy giant BP caused the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history;
The death of 11 workers;
The spill of more than 4 million barrels of oil
damaged the waters and economies of five states.
BP has already pleaded guilty to criminal charges stemming from the disaster and will pay
$4 billion to settle the case, the largest environmental penalty in U.S. history. Michael Underhill,
an attorney with the Justice Department, emphasized BP's profit-driven culture. The evidence
will show that BP put profits above people, profits before safety and profits before the
environment, he said.The captain of the rig vessel, a Transocean employee, had never been
trained in operating the rig's emergency systems. The Deepwater Horizon's emergency
systems, with their required audible alarms, were disconnectedout of concern that the klaxons
would wake the crew. A crucial well pressure test was misinterpreted by two BP employees, an
error the company has previously acknowledged. Transocean's drill crew put too much trust in
BP, and they paid for that fact with their lives, said Transocean attorney BradBrian.
Halliburton's lawyer said key safety tests were omitted because they would have required time
and money. BP wants to avoid charges of gross negligence, and punitive damages of $4300
per barrel. BP claims that as a result of their clean up techniques much of the oil was captured
before it could pollute the waters of the Gulf. BP says that it has already spent $26billion on
restoration and clean-up.
December 16 2013 sees the end of the second phase of the trial.
December 16 2013 also witnessed the completion of a contract between Oman and BP to drill
300 wells as part of the Khazzan Gas Project,worth $16 billion.
What happened in the Gulf of Mexico was of little significance to the Emirates in the Middle

Oil Pollution

SEPTEMBER 4 2014: Judge Barbier announced in New Orleans that BP OIL was guilty of gross
negligence at DeepWater Horizon oil disaster and would face a fine of $18 billion.Oil drilling can
lead to environmental crimes by environmental corporate criminals. The profits and the fines
generated by these corporate criminals can be huge, immense, unbelievable, sufficient to rectify
the damages or sufficient to compensate for losses.Oil Companies have been pursuing fracking
since 1950s. Normally, it is developed when oil and gas have stopped flowing efficiently and need
to   increase their liquidity. Water and chemicals are injected into the wells and oil and gas are drawn out under pressure. When the pressure is too great, the base rock will crack
and quake; and the water/oil/gas will leak and pollute all ground water! in the basin. The fracking companies will commit an environmental crime, polluting the shale base

Rainforests: Deforests
AUGUST 2014 Reports revealed that government agents in Brazil/Peru had discovered tribes of indigenous peoples that had lived in complete isolation in Amazonia from the
migrant communities such as the commercial loggers, and shifted cultivators.Logging and farming can lead to the destruction of rainforests in South America; and Malaysia, and
Australia. Also major projects like the constructionof hydro-electric dams; mining for bauxite; and industrial operations like iron and steel making, and aluminium smelting; lead to the
direct loss of forests due to the clearing of land., building roads, and long term water/air/land pollution.If the object is to conserve the rain forests, then any activities that result in the
destruction of the rainforests, and their communities, must beconsidered an environmental crime.Logging companies select trees and cut them down. They depend upon the
maintenance of the forest, and remove the best trees. Their work involves the removal of a few logs but it results in extensive damage to the forest due to heavy machinery, road
building, as well as soil disturbance,soil erosion, siltation; deforestation, following the trees falling to the ground, and creating jungles. Once the roads have been built into the
rainforests, they are used by the shifted cultivators to move into the forests to start small scale farming.Many of these farmers are landless, having lost their land to the government
and the corporations and the criminal syndicates. They are directly involved in the total clearance of the forests for food crops; tree plantations, grazing cattle, and fuel wood. Many
shifted culivators, in fact, are the environmental criminals committing environmental crimes! Total clearance is pursued by agriculture.
SEPTEMBER 9, 2014 Governments see the forests as trees for sale, say $11,000 each, and offer the areas under licences to international logging companies. Illegal logging is
carried out by local communities, many of whom are sponsored by criminal syndicates, and gain extra cash to improve their standards of life.At thesame time, illegal loggers in Peru
kill tribal leaders who try to claim their rights to land, and agitate against the illegal loggers.Forest experts argue that the forests should be seen as sources of important plant,
animal, and insect species, micro-organisms, as well as medicines.It is a real benefit of the forests to harvest the fruit, seeds, the products of the trees.The rainforests should be
harvested. It is a crime to log, cut,slash and burn trees.
EARTH ACTION reports that large quantities of wood extracted from forest conversion projects are reaching international markets illegally, in full knowledge of Cameroon’s Ministry
of Forestry (MINFOF) and the European Union (EU), says Greenpeace Africa. The failure to fully monitor and regulate timber from such projects is undermining international
agreements Cameroon has with bodies such as the EU, including its Voluntary partnership Agreement (VPA), part of the bloc's Forest Law Enforcement Governance and Trade
(FLEGT) action plan. Greenpeace Africa obtained evidence that Uniprovince, a company owned by US agribusiness company Herakles Farms, has cut at least 10,000 m3of  
commercially valuable wood. While official documents from the port of Douala show that a shipment of over 3000 m3 has already left Douala forthe Chinese port of Zhangjiagang.
The Herakles Farms project in the country's South West region has proved highly controversial since its announcement in 2009 and attracted the opposition of local residents, civil
society and international NGOs who say it threatens an area of important biodiversity value and the livelihoodsof communities who live there.Sadly it comes as no surprise to
Greenpeace Africa to see this wood find its way to China despite all the evidence of its illegality said Irene Wabiwa,Forest Campaign Manager.In a report published last May, Licence
to Launder, Greenpeace Africa documented how Uniprovince obtained a Vente de coupe permit to log without public auction, in violation of Cameroonian law. Three different
Cameroonian state prosecutors were given information proving Uniprovince's illegal logging operations, but no action has been taken to our knowledge explains Wabiwa. The
Cameroon's Ministry of Forestry and the EU, in charge of the implementation of the FLEGT Partnership Agreement, were also repeatedly informed; but unfortunately, it did not
prevent the wood from being exported. On August 19th, Greenpeace East Asia submitted the evidence to the competent authorities in China, asking them to investigate about the
Chinesecompany that is involved in importing illegal timbers from Herakles Farms/Uniprovince.Regrettably, the case of the illegal logging title obtained by Uniprovince is just the tip
of the iceberg. There are strong indications that the allocationof  thirteen Ventes de coupe permits earlier this year, to a variety of timber companies for operations in the Kribi area,
failed to respect procedure.A large proportion of wood from Cameroon's Vente de coupe logging operations is destined to China via the port of Zhangjiagang, taking advantage of
the fact that the country doesn't yet have legislation in place to prevent the imports of illegal wood. If these operations continue with total disregard for the law, it will undermine the
credibility of the FLEGT partnership agreement ratified in December 2011, accelerate forest destruction and deprive communities who depend on the forest for their livelihood in
Cameroon warns Wabiwa.  Cameroon made a commitment to verify the legality of all timber and derived products covered by the agreement whether these are sold on the  internal
markets, exported to the EU or to markets outside the EU.
Greenpeace (http://www.greenpeace.org)
RainTree RainForest Facts
Tropical Rain Forest Animals.com
Save the RainForest.com
Forests Monitor.Com  

8       Unsustainability and Sustainability; June 2012
I wish to propose some alternatives e.g. a sustainable economy; a steady state economy; a green economy. I want to make it clear that these may not be easy to adopt, and
develop. In the past, banks kept notes that they printed, and cash they were given by their customers.It has become clear during the arguments between politicians and economists
since 2008 that the default financial position is growth, and debt.Austerity is not acceptable because it limits growth by insisting on cutting costs, reducing debts, and repaying loans,
and living within your means.I want to examine the implications of these arguments for the collapse of an unsustainable economy and the development of a sustainable economy.. It
is worth remembering that most people in the world are poor; surviving on the equivalent of 520euros to 5200 euros a year. The current debatesand disputes that are taking place
in Europe and the USA about growth and austerity are of interest only to those wealthy enough to be activelyinvolved in the management of money. All discussions about growth and
prosperity concern a minority of the global population - what has cometo be called the 1%.  As Christine Lagarde of the IMF noted recently, the conditions of the peoples in Sub-
Saharan Africa are of much more concern to the IMF and World Bank than the shenanigans of Greece or Spain or Germany. All the current discussions, whether by George Soros
or Paul Krugman, or the World Bank or IMF, seem to assume that most people are prosperous and enjoy the benefits of employment and bank loans. They fail to mention that all
growth is the product of debt. The creation of money as interest bearing debt demands that enterprises generate profits, out of which loan debts are repaid and benefits such as
wages, bonuses, and pensions, can be funded. The creation of money as interest bearing debt depends upon a fractional reserve banking system. At the moment, FR banking is
unregulated. The need to create money as required by capitalist enterprises and corporations or governments means that if an individual has 1000, they can borrow70,000; a
corporation with 1 million, can borrow up to 100 million; a government with 1 billion will be able to borrow up to 100 billion. Each loan is secured by collateral but what is important to
the banks is the payment of interest, the more the better. You may wonder how it is possible for the banks to make loans that are so much greater than the deposit. A simple
consideration of the interest payments reveals all: a loan @ 8% for20 years: 1000 generates 4662; 1 million generates 4.6 million; and 1 billion generates 4.6 billion. Under this
system all enterprises are in debt, and have to pay interest. Governments, in particular, will use their tax revenues to pay their debts. The US government will pay $500 billion in a
year as interest payments. To put it another way, governments use their taxes to pay the banks. They do not use taxes to supply government services.Countries like Greece,
Portugal, Ireland, Iceland, are in trouble because they cannot afford to pay the interest! Their tax incomes are not enough. Times of austerity and cost cutting lead to demands to
pay off loans, and to stop borrowing money. These actions lead to loss of growth, loss of prosperity, loss of profits, loss of employment, failure to repay debts, failure to increase
loans, failure to increase new money: in fact move towardsFull Reserve Banking. But recent comments by Soros, Krugman, IMF, World Bank, and Central Banks, demand that loss
and debt must be secured by growth and loans.Please note that as long we continue to operate a system of loans and debts, the failure to create new money as loans will cause
economic and financial collapse. A system of debt based growth has to be secured by loans and interest payments as well as collateral. This means that most enterprises are owned
by the banks, and depend upon loans, and upon growth to make profits to pay interest.. The entrepreneurs are trapped in a cycle of debt. Even the so called 1%  are sitting on a
mountain of debt. If cuts result in loss of consumption of all products, the enterprises will collapse, and the entrepreneurs will go bankrupt. The system of debt drives the search for
growth, and maintains the demands for profits. It leads us to organize an unsustainable economy. An unsustainable world is one where all products are over-exploited. Any product
has to be found or made and sold as soon as possible so as togenerate profits. The search for fuel oil continues to the sacrifice of the local landscapes, the pollution of water, and
destruction of habitats. This search limits the development of alternative sources of energy simply because oil is the preferred option.

Fishing the oceans using industrial methods leads to the exhaustion of all species, followed by the farming of fish and the use of synthetic foods.
Forests are cut down leaving all the land bare and eroded. Recently, Brazil has been advertising eucalyptus plantations. The attraction is for financial returns, not the protection of
theAmazon forests.
Minerals are removed on a vast scale without any regard for the natural environment, such as water supplies, nor even local villages.
Farming is carried out on an industrial scale, and crops are grown across 1000s of acres and sold across the world, without any regard for the balance of species and the hunger of
the local communities.
Factories and their products fill the biosphere with waste products that poison the earth..
At the same time, there are persuasive arguments for the development of
a sustainable global economy.
What this means is that industrial,commercial, agricultural, maritime initiatives conserve and preserve the environment. Such initiatives respond to local needs not international
markets. Developments are designed so that the rates of exploitation balance the rates of restoration of products and materials. For example, fish areharvested in consideration of
the replacement of the species. It is important to maintain the species or minerals or soils or water. They should not be exploited exclusively for profit.An environmental economy will
express the steady state economy. There will not be demands for large loans, and repayments will be limited by the rates of profit. It will be normal for Central Banks to provide the
new money for the initiatives, by printing money.  According to the present system, money is interest-bearing debt. Governments, corporations, individuals sponsor their projects by
loans. The profits are used to pay the principal and the interest. A capitalist economy depends on loans, and the banks depend on interest payments.A new system must generate
capital from tax revenues and cash payments, as well as printed money. It is to be based on cash, not interest. It will take longer to generate cash for investments. The development
of initiatives will be long term. A system that is based upon fractional reserve banking, and in which all new money is interest bearing loans, is dependent upon loan money. Our
present system operates with 3% cash and 97% loan money. There is no way that this system can survive on cash, simply because there is not enough. The system operates by
interest bearing loans. If the loans stop, the system collapses. All countries will reach the point when they run outof resources, money or materials. Their enterprises will not be able
to produce commodities without loans. Each of these enterprises depends upon the availability of cheap finance. The resources are offered up as collateral for the interest-bearing
loans. The profits are geared to repayment of interest, as well as the control of costs. In an unsustainable economy, the demands and rights of the local citizens are ignored in
search for minimum costs and maximum profits. A sustainable economy is one in which products are not mass produced; local landscapes are conserved; priority is given to
renewable sources of energy e.g. solar, wind, water, bio-mass like olive waste. Local peoples bicycle. There is no demand for automobiles, nor oil products. The oil industry,
petroleum, cars and trucks disappear. Fishing protects the survival of species: for example, nets are designed with different size holes so as to allow the smallest to escape and
become adults; forests are protected, unlike the exploitation of the forests of the Amazon, and Prey Lang,and Khimki. The supplies of timber provided for heating are controlled. The
extensive forests of Eastern Europe are under threat from local communities who are busy gathering the timber in place of heating oils and diesel that are becoming too expensive
to use. Mining operations are planned to safeguard the lives of local communities, to preserve water supplies, and provide improved standards of living. Farming is organized on a
local level, so as to provide food supplies to local communities and maintain the environmental balance between humans, plants, animal, insects.At the same time, biologists look for
seeds and plants that can be more fruitful; able to survive on less rain; and to resist drought conditions; as well as to cope with torrential rains. Factories and processing are
designed to produce little waste, and protect the soils and atmosphere of the earth. All enterprises are set up to consider their impact upon the biosphere. When supermarkets and
retail warehouses are designed, the planners take intoaccount the effects upon rainwater run off, local traffic flows, local shops. It is clear that a sustainable economy is completely
different to present systems. It can be argued that the world population of 7+billion people will automatically generate great demands for all products. But we have to remember that
6+ billion people are living in poverty. The basics that are taken for granted by half a billion people in Europe and the USA are luxuries foreveryone else. The 6+ billion poor do not
have reliable sources of electricity, water, sanitation, medical help, shelter, education, transport, food,employment, wages. However, once they demand a way of living that includes
all these basics, the world economy will have to change. A Green Economy will generate clean energy. There will be Green cities with open spaces, and limited auto-transport. Zero
waste will be produced,industrially and domestically. Many different industries will be using a diversity of resources. Ecosystem services will look after plants and animals,
atmosphere, carbon dioxide and methane; the provision of water and sanitation. There will be local living economies, supporting empowered  communities.
Social Ecology is
determined to study the impacts of human societies upon the conditions and stability of the biosphere of the earth.
Social Ecology will focus on the actions of human communities and their consequences for the natural environment.
Social Ecology is not interested in public statements by governments and corporations and individuals as to the protection of the environment; it isconcerned to study and analyse
their actions.So when people declare that they are determined to protect the atmosphere, Social ecologists will look at their inconsistencies such as the continuing use of fossil fuels
and the search for more sources of these fuels, along with their failure to develop renewable energy.
Social Ecology will observe the impacts of human behaviour in urban and rural settings on forests, fields, rivers, seas, air, fire and water.
SocialEcologists will derive alternatives, designed to alter current behaviours: they are descriptive, investigative, analytical, judgemental, and prescriptive.
Oregon environmental council
Centre for the Advancement of Steady State Economy www.steadystate.org
go to jkelvynrichards.blogspot.com.

6.   Globalisation: Cheats, Fraud, Corruption

On February 7 2012 it was announced that there would be a merger of the commodity trader, Glencore, with the mining company, Xstrata, to form a new corporation, Glenstrata.It is
projected that the new corporation will generate revenues of GBP 156 billion, with profits of GBP14 billion. The current chief executive officers were at university together in
Witwatersrand, South Africa, and are already multi-millionaires.The new corporation will manage the mining of zinc, copper, lead, alumina, nickel, cobalt, iron ore, coal; and
production of fuel oil, heating oil,gasoline, naptha, jet fuel, liquefied petroleum gas, steam coal, and coke, ferro-alloys; and the farming of grains, wheat, corn, barley, rice, oilseeds,
cotton, sugar, biodiesel, meals. The corporation operates enterprises in Brazil. Bolivia, Argentina, Peru, Chile, Colombia; Mauritania, Tanzania, SouthAfrica, Mozambique, Zambia,
Equatorial Guinea, Republic of Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo; Kazakhstan, Russia; Italy, France, Spain, UK.,Ireland, Sweden, Norway; Texas, Canada; Singapore,
Philippines, Papua New Guinea, New Caledonia, Australia. It will have a significant global presence.
In a socially just and equitable world, one could imagine that such corporations as Glenstrata [and RioTinto,and BHPBilliton, Anglo-American, and Cargill] would be examples of the
benefits of globalization. They would support local workers and communities with fair wages, pensions, social benefits such as housing and health care; provide facilities for safe
water and sanitation; offer education and training;provide roads and railways; enable local mining companies to develop effective safety procedures, and to protect local
environments from pollution. Such global corporations could make the lives of the local people better with higher standards of living in return for the rights to produce and process
local commodities. Alternatively, if they did not want to bother to make such social provisions, the corporations and their subsidiaries could fully pay their taxes so as to allow the
governments to provide all these amenities to the local citizens.But such an humanitarian approach does not seem to be part of the agenda for international commodity capitalism!
Glencore produces, sources, processes, refines, transports, stores, finances, and supplies commodities, and trades them, playing the markets, selling them at the highest price.
Xstrata mines ores and sells the minerals on the commodities markets. As part of the new corporation, it will become a trader. Glenstrata will control the commodities it mines and
grows from source to market. It will control the prices of everyday goods from fuels,electric wiring, bread, and cereals. It will speculate on futures markets: buying commodities today
at an agreed price, betting that the price will be higher, securing a profit, on the agreed sale date. And of course, because Glenstrata brings the commodities to the market place, it
can control thesupply and prices. Such a corporation will benefit from globalization by gaining access to resources and materials from many countries. It will have strategic control of
essential commodities and will need to be closely regulated by international and national governments. As reported by the New York Times, the Ecologist, Aljazeera, the Daily
Telegraph, the opponents of the merger object that Glenstrata will be able to control the world supply and prices of vital materials by hoarding them until the prices rise e.g. holding
grains in storehouses, waiting for a drought! They fear that Glenstrata will exert a price stranglehold over minerals, foods, and metals. However, some primary shareholders
vigorously oppose the merger on the grounds that too much bonus money will be going to the chief officers to the disadvantage of the shareholders.The past history of both
companies leads us to conclude that their corporate strategies are hard-nosed and that they are highly likely to play the global markets to their advantage, without any consideration
of the benefits of the countries and the communities in which they operate. Minimise costs to maximize profits is a key principle of capitalist practice. For example, Glencore set up
joint enterprises by private deals in the DemocraticRepublic of Congo with 6 mining companies that cost the government $5.5 billion in lost revenue as the result of operating tax
avoidance schemes such as non payment of corporate taxes. In Zambia, the mines at Mufulira pay workers minimum wages, create serious pollution including sulphur poisoning, and
acid rain. In Chile, and Australia, and Canada, Xstrata has been subject to worker disputes over wages and safety.In view of the fact that GLENSTRATA is a new corporation, looking
towards a new future, what are the possibilities of new corporate strategies? Thecountries of Africa have many poor people trying to survive on less than $1.25 a day. And these
countries are rich in minerals and ores. Their tenants should be richer from the rents, and fees and royalties that Glenstrata could be paying them. But the new corporation will
continue to deprive the local communities of their rights and dues. This could change if the governments of countries like Zambia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo,Tanzania,
South Africa, Indonesia, Philippines chose to develop systems of regulation, that would establish and secure exactly what corporations  ought to be paying for their mining and
farming enterprises, Glenstrata would be forced to choose to play fair, and operate for the benefit of local communities and shareholders. A recent story by the BBC showed that this
is not happening. John Sweeney reported that in the DRCongo, at the Luilu refinery, Glenstrata continues to mine and refine copper by using sulphuric acid, and pouring the
residues direct back into the local river........while declaring that it is busy looking after the environment, and improving the living conditions of the workers! At the moment the World
Bank, the IMF, the OECD, and the UN, all condemn the leaders of many developing countries for their extensive practicesof corruption. While this may be justified, it ignores the fact
that the leaders of corruption in these countries are the multi-national corporations who are busy exploiting the resources of the different countries for the lowest cost and the
maximum profit, as well as personal gain. It is well known and well documented that many global corporations, including Glenstrata, choose to use every means at their disposal to
avoid paying taxes!For example, when there are tons of copper waiting to be sold, Glenstrata would buy it from the local mining company, which it owns, at a low cost ofsay
$500million, and sell it in Switzerland at a premium price of say $11.4 billion. Such transfer pricing is a normal practice operated by all the commodity groups of Europe and
Australasia and is instrumental in depriving poor communities of any social benefits from the riches in their neighbourhoods. Another stratagem is to buy up local companies and to
treat them as if they are competitors or subsiduaries or shells according to priorities at thetime. Glenstrata has a number of subsidiary companies in different countries. Sometimes
they operate as integral parts of the corporation,contributing to the total tax contribution;This is a scam developed by PriceWaterhouseCoopers, PwC, whereby the auditors add
together the total corporation tax; the total VAT paid by customers; PAYE and National Insurance payments paid by workers; and treat it as if it was the total tax paid by the
corporation. The total tax contribution is used as the justification for the non-payment of tax. Sometimes the local companies are treated as independent, but dependent on the
global corporation for loans. This scam is known as thin capitalisation. As business loans are usually welcomed by governments, they are subject to tax relief schemes: the bigger
the loan, the bigger the relief. In this scam, the corporation is lending money to itself, so as to avoid paying tax and gaining relief. .Sometimes the local companies are operated as
independent, mining the ores, and selling minerals to the corporation at the lowest prices.Tax havens such as Switzerland are essential to resource-seeking corporations operating
in Africa: more than 85 per cent of asset portfolios for sub-Saharan Africa pass through tax havens. A tax haven is a territory/country that has low or nil taxes; allows companies to
register, to be nonresident; observe total privacy; enables individuals and companies to avoid paying taxes in their resident territory. A tax haven operates as a financial enterprise
attracting as many cash deposits as possible. Shell companies are another scam that allows listed corporations to buy the name and listing of a company that no longer functions;
has gone bankrupt, has no products, no officers, and no workers. The shell enables corporations to hide monies in their accounts and audits. Glenstrata has many subsidiaries in
Africa that are registered in tax havens such as the British VirginIslands. It keenly utilises tax havens as vehicles for shell companies able to access legal and financial opacity tools
including banking secrecy, thin capitalisation, little or no taxation, zero disclosure of company accounts, use of nominees, and - best of all - high-level client confidentiality, all of
which is entirely legal. But all of which is immoral and corrupt. All of these scams enable corporations such as Glenstrata to cheat the native workers, and their communities, and
their governments of income and social funds and benefits. These complex webs of corruption raise issues about thelegitimacy of such corporations and the intentions of
governments that declare these actions as legal. These webs reveal that globalization is designed for the benefit of corporate capitalism.GLENSTRATA is one of the largest owners
of farm land in the world. Are they at all concerned to feed the farmers and their families, and raise theirstandards of living? or to hoard their products in storehouses? Instead of
playing the food markets to raise prices, should they endeavour to reduce hunger. Glencore already recognizes food insecurity and participates in the UN World Food Programme
as a supplier of grain as well as a trader.However, shareholders of GLENSTRATA such as the United Arab Emirates and Korea are determined to gain access to the farmlands for
the benefitof their own citizens in the future, without regard for the interests of the farmers in the supplier countries. We have to confront the facts that commodities markets reward
the traders and keep the miners and farmers in poverty. Each year, Africa loses a minimum of $148bn - almost four times the sum of foreign aid it receives, to capital flight - of which
60 per cent is due tocorporate mispricing. Clearly, the solution toward enabling African countries to recover their lost revenue and become economically independent, is to block
revenue leakages, rather than provide further loans and grants characterised by conditions that undermine development.The period between 2007 and 2012 has revealed more
clearly than before that we are subject to a capitalist system in which the drive for profits leads banks and fund managers and corporations to seek for high prices and high returns
without regard for the interests of the customers, the workersand communities across the world. We have to accept not only that poverty is the norm, but also that corruption is
standard practice. It seems too that those individuals who have millions of dollars want more! They do not seem to care that if they could be satisfied with $500.000, they would
release millions of millions of dollars to alleviate the poverty of 6.9 billion others. Is it so unreasonable to ask corporations like GLENSTRATA to adopt business strategies and
working practices that benefit the workers and their families? Instead of spending fortunes on auditors and financiers and lawyers to creatively account the books, those fees could
be used to raise the standards of living of the locals involved in mining and farming across the world.

5. World Population 2014
Having read the Human Development Report, and the UNFPA report about World Population 2011, in association with Gunnar Rundgren’s new book Garden Earth, it seems that the
impact of the world population on the global environment is more complicated than simply numbers.
November 2011, it is estimated by the UN, the World Bank, that the planet Earth has a human population of 7 billion. It is estimated that 50% live in the urban areas.NASA reports
that satellite images show 3% of the earths surface is urbanized.While there are more people living on earth than at any other time, 50% of the people live on 3% of the land. The
other 50% occupy 97% of the land. Does this count as global overcrowding? or simply aspects of urban living? How many more people can survive on the other 97% of earth?It is
easy to think that there are too many people and that the world is subject to overpopulation, associated with excessive demands for food, water,jobs, resource exploitation, and
destruction of the environment, green house gases, and climate change.

POPULATION DENSITY: 2014   Total numbers do not tell the whole story  
If you look at a map of population distribution and density, the most notable feature
is that most of the earths surface supports fewer than 5 people per square km and
is still relatively empty.  Large tracts of the earth’s surface are empty,whereas specific
urban locations are overwhelmed by the number of people. Across the world there are,
on average, 52 persons per square kilometer [psk].  Today, the largest countries include
Russia with 17 million square kilometers; Canada with 9.9 million square kilometers; the
USA, 9.8 million square kilometers; China, 9.5 million square kilometers; Brazil,
8.5 million square kilometers; Australia with 7.7 million square kilometers. Countries
like Canada and Russia have extensive land areas with few or no inhabitants.Both
countries are cold and freezing for many days of the year. Russia has 8.3 persons for
every square kilometer; while Canada has 3.4 persons psk.Some countries are hot and
dry and deserted like parts of Australia, with only 3 persons psk. Other countries, like
India, are hot and dry and wet, with368 persons psk. China is a vast land space, with
cities like Shanghai, and Beijing each with up to 20 million people, and a general
population densityof 140 persons psk.Even with a population of 7 billion, the world still
has vast empty spaces: left empty because they are either too cold/wet/hot/or dry to live
comfortably. The greatest concentrations of people are to be found [where they have
always been] in the valleys of the main rivers such as the Nile, the Ganges,and the Yangtse;
and the coastal zones of New York, Los Angeles, Rio de Janeiro, Shanghai, Lagos. Countries
like China [with 1.3 billion people] and India [1.2 billion] have the greatest numbers, and have
wide open spaces. Their peoples can move into these more open spaces, but instead they are
moving into the cities. This is the pattern for the rest of the world. As the total numbers of people
increase, they are distributed unevenly. There are many open, empty spaces, such as the Sahara Desert, the grasslands of Africa, the steppes ofRussia, and China, the Amazon
forests, the glaciers of Greenland. But the peoples are moving to the cities, away from the fields to the slums ofTokyo, 32 million; Mexico, New York, Mumbai, with 20 million; Jakarta,
Sao Paulo, Delhi, 19 million; Osaka, Shanghai, 17 million.Planners and politicians of the United Nations argue about the merits of the field or the city. The consensus, at this time, is
that it may be better for the peoples to be concentrated where they can receive social benefits and medical care, where schools and hospitals are easily accessible by bus or
bicycle. The United Nations Population Agency estimates that 43% of the global population is under the age of 25. 2.2 billion are children, of which many will die before they get to 5
years old. A significant improvement in child care and medicine will lead to a lower death rate, and an increase in populationover the next ten years. 1.8 billion of the 7 billion is aged
between 10 and 25 and now form the largest cohort of young people ever. Even though there are more children and adolescents, there is evidence [www.geography.about.com] that
the numbers of children have stabilized, even that in some areas we have peak child;[after Gunnar Rundgren.] In particular, many of the countries of the developed world have a
declining population.For example, Ukraine: 0.8% natural decrease annually; 28% total population decrease by 2050; Russia: -0.6%; -22%; Belarus -0.6%; -12%;Bulgaria -0.5%;
-34%; Latvia -0.5%; -23%; Lithuania -0.4%; -15%; Hungary -0.3%; -11%;Romania -0.2%; -29%;Estonia -0.2%; -23%; Moldova -0.2%; -21%;Croatia -0.2%; -14%;Germany -0.2%;
-9%; Czech Republic -0.1%; -8%; Japan 0%; -21%; Poland 0%; -17%;Slovakia 0%; -12%; Austria 0%; 8%increase; Italy 0%; -5%; Slovenia 0%; -5%; Greece 0%; -4%.Fewer families
comprise 4 or 6 children; more have two children. In China, it is still the case that one child families are the norm and will result in a slower/smaller natural expansion of population by
child birth.  Overall, it seems that birth rates are down. And the threatened population explosion,predicted in the 1990s, is not going to happen. Global Issues.org ;reports that it is
also the case that 21,000 children die everyday! that is, 7.6 milliona year!From UNICEF, State of the Worlds children 2010:22 million infants are not protected from diseases by
routine immunization;7.6 million children worldwide died before their 5th birthday in 2010;4 million newborns worldwide are dying in the first month of life;2 million children under 15
are living with HIV; 500,000 women die each year from causes related to pregnancy and childbirth.. The UN Population Agency suggests that the future increases in total population
will be the result of higher survival rates amongst all sectors of the living population rather than significant increases in birth rates. People will live longer due to better medical care.
Babies and their mothers will survive as a result of secure water, sanitation, vaccination. Wikipedia/CIA World Fact Book inform us that in 1965 it was normal for 15.5 persons per
1000 todie. They forecast that in 2015 the death rate will be 8.3 per 1000. It is clear that the population explosion has not happened. The families in the countries of the developing
world are not having many children, but are trying to control their lives by adopting family planning. We must recognizethat higher survival rates will occur only if aid resources are
allocated to improved social benefits and medical care.At the same time, we already know that extreme events like floods, drought, higher temperatures, lower rainfall, tornadoes,
earthquakes, tsunami,will disastrously impact upon communities on islands, by the coast, in grasslands, and will result in higher death rates. Given that large numbers of people are
living by the coasts, they may be subject to natural disasters leading to mass loss of life, as we have seen over the years in the GangesDelta, Aceh in Indonesia, the Fukushima
tsunami in Japan, where thousands of people were swept away by the sea.Why is it that economists, politicians, sociologists, social ecologists, planners and such like, are so
concerned about the numbers of people on theearth?  The UNFPA, in their recent report, ask why focus on the over population by the poor?Why pay little attention to the over-
consumption of the rich few?  It is easy to forget that out of the 7 billion, 10 million people control $50 trillion of global GDP and $19 trillion is spent by the 500,000 who each
earnmore than $100,000 a year. 0.05% of the global population live in luxury, controlling 80% of the wealth. 99.95% live in relative poverty.  Nearly all the consumption and
production that occurs in communities is managed by the 0.05% of the global population. These figures reveal that overconsumption, exploitation of resources, the drive for growth
and profit is manipulated by the 1%. It is not the direct impact of increasing population.We have to accept that many of the adults included in the other 6.5 billion [along with 2,2
billion children, or 1.8 billion youth] may not have more than $2 dollars a day each, and will only be scratching a living in the fields or searching for scraps in the slums.Social
ecologists like Ted Trainer and Frank Peirce argue that across the world an average person requires 2.7 hectares of land to provide their basic needs for food, water, and fuel. In
India each person uses 1 hectare. On the other hand, the average American consumes the output from 9.5hectares. If every citizen lived the lifestyle of the average American, we
would need the land space equivalent to 5 Planets Earth. Therefore, most people cannot aspire to the standards of living enjoyed by the Americans, or the citizens of the EU, or
Japan. There is not enough land. The 6.5 billion have no prospect of achieving the capitalist dream of the 500,000. Once they realize this, they will demand some answers, and
demonstrate against their governments. Their future will be social unrest! Social protest!In some countries, their present is already demonstration and riot, and government change.
At this time, 2011, the majority of global resources and most of the pollution, are the responsibility of the capitalist elite, the 10+ million. The present environmental crises are not the
result of excessive consumption by the majority.It is true that if the 99% did demand more income, more food, more water, more jobs, more services, and facilities, their demands
would destroy the biosphere. Planners, politicians, and managers and governors are concerned about the total number of people on Earth in anticipation of theconsequences of
their future demands simply because their demands cannot be met. Human societies are caught in a trap. Many citizens want jobs,better wages, so as to buy more things. They want
growth and savings so as to secure their futures. They do not want to spend their lives scratchingthe soil or scavenging the streets.But a sustainable future for all is one without
growth. A sustainable future is a subsistent, low growth economy. The poor majority will have to stay on the farm and in the village or in the city and the slum. The governments will
have to devise projects to make their lives acceptable, tolerable, bearable.The truth is that even if communities removed the rich elite, and redistributed their wealth, the monies
would not improve the lives of the 7+ billion. Forexample, the $70 trillion, controlled by the 1%, divided amongst the 7 billion would provide a gift of $10,000, but no security for the
future. The governments of the day would be better advised to tax the rich and spend the taxes on social benefits, social enterprises, and medical care.At the moment, there are
large empty spaces: at some time, there will have to be migration from the urban areas e.g. from China to Russia; India toChina; from Europe to Russia; from Europe to Canada;
from Europe to Australia; Arabia to Africa. Such changes in policy will cause significant changes in perspectives, such as the abandonment of concepts of nationalism and country
territory.If global population is to be more stabilized, overall family size will need to be reduced to one child per family, and family planning be freely availableto all citizens whatever
the local religions advocate!  We are at the stage where any improvements in health care will result in the survival of more people. 7 billion will become 7.5 billion simply by
reducingthe number of deaths in childbirth, and offering care to the aged so that they live longer.But as in the past, the future of the human race is rooted in innovation. For
example, innovations and inventions could be planned to render life in cold spaces, in hot places, in slums, possible and more comfortable. Installations need to be designed to
protect the shoreline. Water security can only be achieved in future by desalinization of ocean waters. Now, water sources are wasted and limit human survival. All nations must
exploit themost secure renewable energy, solar power, and export the power across the globe, such as, from the Sahara to the EU.The benefits of high technology must be directed
to better living standards for all citizens. The necessary innovations must be directed to enable all people to live a good life They should not be designed solely for the benefit of the
inventor and innovator, the capitalist entrepreneur. The innovations are to be part of a social business network whereby communities are actively involved caring and sharing for
each other.If there are no changes, most people, that is 7+billion, will continue to be relatively poor, living in slums and working in rubbish or scratching the soil in the fields. The
poor majority will remain to be exploited by the capitalist elites. The 10+million capitalists will continue to form the ruling plutocracy and organize the exploitation of the environment
for the benefit of their own families. Their wealth will enable them to live wherever they please. But for a fair, equitable future for all, they cannot be allowed to continue developing
the capitalist system. All families and communities are to be partof a cooperative, social business system which works in favour of 7+billion people, developing micro-finance to
promote community enterpise., andcollective survival.
go to jkelvynrichards.blogspot.com


This essay is an analysis of the implications of our tendencies to see issues in isolation, and our attempts to resolve them as single issues. Weconsistently ignore the facts that the
resolution of one issue can make others worse: tipping us from one crisis to another. For example, we may welcome the declaration of water as a human right, ignoring the fact that
across the globe, water is not secure. We may want to promote a steadystate economy, without planning for no-growth markets. We may welcome peak demands, but then resent
our dependence on other countries.

1. Various scientists, such as Prof. Hubbert, have confirmed that the global economy has reached peak oil. It happened in the USA in 1976, meetingHubberts prediction. Since that
time the USA has been consuming more and more global oil. And the American politicians have been complaining increasingly about the US dependence on other countries. What
this means is that the world demand for oil exceeds supply. This peak has come at a time when countries like China, India, Brazil, are greatly increasing their demands. The
consequences of the shortage of oil supply over the next 50years will be the increasing economic decline of the principal countries of the G8/ G20/ and even G70. We all have to
accept that once the oil hasbeen drilled out of the ground, there is no more. The global economy is currently totally dependent on fuel oils for transport, heating, petrochemicalssuch
as fertilizers. The developing world will not take kindly to the fact that the developed world has already taken the best, the most accessible,and most of fuel oil! At the same time, we
have reached the point of peak coal. Many people have not been bothered by this trend because they have believed that thelarge scale use of various coals was over: This is to
forget that in 2011 coal is still used to generate most of the electricity across the world. Thedevelopment of industries across China and India will become increasingly dependent
upon electricity, as generated from hydro or from lignite/bituminous coal or from nuclear power. Any support for nuclear power is constantly undermined by ecological disasters as at
Fukushima inJapan 2011; or Three Mile Island in USA in 1979; Chernobyl in USSR/Ukraine 1986; as well as several other disasters. For some reason or other, the producers seem
incapable of designing trouble-free nuclear power stations. It became clear during the recent Fukushima disaster that the operatorsbelieved that nothing could go wrong with their
design. The stupidity of constructing nuclear power stations within active seismic zones did not seemto have crossed their minds.It has been predicted that the decline and fall of the
use of the fossil fuels as key sources of energy will stop most of the infrastructure of modern life.There is a continuing debate about whether or not iron and steel have reached their
peak productions.
2.        July, 2010.   UN General Assembly declared access to clean water and sanitation, a human right. Safe and clean drinking water and sanitation is a human right essential to
the full enjoyment of life and all other human rights. The UN has voiced deep concern that an estimated 884 million peoplelack access to safe drinking water and a total of more than
2.6 billion people do not have access to basic sanitation. Studies also indicate that about1.5 million children under the age of five die each year and 443 million school days are lost
because of water- and sanitation-related diseases.Water does cover about two-thirds of the Earth's surface, but most of it is too salty for use by humans. Only 2.5% of the world's
water is not salty, but two-thirds of that is locked up in the icecaps and glaciers. Of what is left, about 20% is in remote areas, and much of the rest arrives at the wrong timeand
place, as monsoons and floods. Humans have available less than 0.08% of all the Earth's water. We use about 70% of this water in agriculture.It is worth noting that a continuing
water crisis places a direct limit on the growth and survival of human societies. The Ecologist journal reports in August 2011 that one person in six [ 1.15 billion] across the world has
no access to safe drinking water. One in two[3.45 billion] lacks safe sanitation. Adequate, safe water is key to good health and a proper diet. There are still some 2.6 billion people
around theworld who have to use pit latrines or defecate in the open. The Gates Foundation has just announced a $370 million project over several years todevelop a toilet that
doesn't need water, mains power or sewerage and that will cost next to nothing. They are asking inventors to imagine a toilet that takes human waste and converts it into minerals for
fertiliser and clean water, while harvesting energy in the process. The toilet will not use water,doesn’t need the expensive infrastructure of a sewerage system, doesn’t need to be
connected to mains electricity and, unlike composting toilets,doesnt need lots of space and time. If this new multi-million dollar project, the Reinventing the toilet challenge, is a
success, such a toilet may soon become a reality.Until then, inadequate sanitation causes an estimated 1.5 million children to die each year due to diarrhoeal diseases. But with
water scarce -1.6 billion people currently live on less than one thousand litres of water a year and by 2020, experts predict that this figure will rise to between3.2 and 4.6 billion (the
average Briton uses 55,000). Toilets that flush the problem away, using precious water and expensive infrastructure, are clearly not the answer. Although they will be so high-tech
that they will probably need to be controlled by a microprocessor, the toilets must not exceed a costof 5 cents per person per day.'Over time, we’d like to bring this cost down to even
less than this,' says Frank Rijsberman, director of the Global Development Programme of theGates Foundation. The toilets will be sold, rather than given away, 'for them to be
sustainable,' says Rijsberman. All the concept toilets rely on theseparation of urine from faeces with the subsequent drying and burning of solids and some form of liquid treatment,
such as osmosis or evaporation.Some models meet the requirements for a unit suitable for a single household, others will be community toilets that treat larger volumes of waste,
perhaps off-site. For example, in South Africa, specially designed toilet pedestals that separate urine from faeces are already fairly common. Theproject of the University of KwaZulu-
Natal in conjunction with eThekwini Water and Sanitation (Durban) will take this technology further by combusting solid waste to a pathogen-free ash that can be used as a
phosphate and carbon rich fertiliser. Heat generated in the combustion will be used to dry solids and to concentrate the liquid stream, resulting in a liquid fertiliser after osmosis. In
the project, a simple transport system for faeces and urine will be set up. Liquid waste will be collected using appropriate technology such as a bicycle pump system already in use
for emptying pit latrines. For reasons of hygiene, solid waste will be transported directly in the toilet containers. It is important that access to clean water and sanitation is formally
declared a human right. The declaration enables the UN General Assembly to apply political pressure to member countries to provide safe water and sanitation for all their citizens
as well as to support the initiatives offered bythe GATES FOUNDATION. The UN Declaration is made, and welcomed, despite a continuing fresh water crisis due to the rise in global
population: {at the moment estimated to be 7 billion, and projected to be 9 billion by 2050}; the desire for better living standards, as countries like Brazil, China, India, Russia
increase their GDP; the inefficiency of the way we use much of the available water e.g. irrigation wastes water on a prodigal scale, with the water trickling away or simply evaporating
before it can do any good. Pollution makes more of this water unfit for use. Increasingly, governments are seeking subterranean supplies of groundwater; about 80% of the world's
population live in areas where the fresh water supply is not secure. Future water shortages are a growing concern for business, according to a global survey published November
2010, organised by the CarbonDisclosure Project, which does research on behalf of 137 institutional investors representing US$16 trillion of holdings. Sectors reporting thegreatest
exposure to water risks include food, drinks; tobacco, metals, and mining. A report from consultants ERM was requested by institutional investors who want to know how much risk
their investments face from water problems. The research shows that more than half of the 147 firms  responding expect problems with water in the next 1-5 years. Some 60% of
firms have already set performance targets on the way they use water.It shows that 39% of the firms are already suffering from water related issues - including disruption from
drought or flooding, declining water quality,and increases in water prices. The report predicts that the issues will get much worse as the world demand for water is projected to soar
over the nextfew decades.The UK's chief scientist, John Beddington, has warned that water scarcity will form part of a perfect storm of environmental problems. The challenge lies in
managing what we have among competing users, whether they are firms, communities or natural systems. It is clear that water scarcity is more  problematic for prosperity and growth
than any other factor.The population of the world continues to increase: 7 billion people on Oct 31 2011. Water scarcity limits the .survivability of communities. What should the UN
be proposing to match the numbers of people and the availability of resources? and the patterns of greater pollution?  What shouldcountries be doing to control their increasing
populations? Many detailed studies of human population, as presented in WIKIPEDIA, reveals that up tothe 18th.century population doubled every 32,000 years. But after 1900
population has doubled every 31 years. It is now 7 billion; predicted to rise to9 billion by 2050. All the evidence indicates that the world resources will not be able to support this
number, particularly not with the economic demands of the richest sectors of society in the USA or the EU or Japan. Key resources are in decline, and industrial growth is limited, but
globalpopulation increases [for the moment.]

3. Ecologists and biologists have made it clear that more than 450 particles per million of water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide,ozone, chloroflourocarbons in the
atmosphere initiate greenhouse effects, leading to extensive problems of pollution and climate change. The biosphere increases in temperature and patterns of precipitation change
with the results that glaciers melt, zones dry up, deserts spread, seas rise in level, and coastal areas and small islands submerge. These changes have resulted in the mass
extinction of species in the biosphere.

4. The current arguments concern whether or not the widespread effects of global industrialization and urbanisation have led to global air pollution and climate change? Or that
climate change is the result of an inter-glacial phase? or is a response to sunspot activity and increased solar radiation? If it is the result of natural forces, then we do not have to
change. It can be business as usual;.
The capitalist ethic of grow or die is sustainable. The Stern Report, for the UK Treasury, 2006, and the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, (2007), Working Group III,
AssessmentReport, 2007, and 2009, concluded that the greenhouse problems can be solved, at negligible cost, without any need to question the commitment toaffluent living
standards and economic growth.If we accept that human intervention is the cause of climate change, then we must recognize that human behaviour has to change. Ted Trainer,
ofthe University of New South Wales, in his latest analysis, published in The International Journal of INCLUSIVE DEMOCRACY, Vol.4, No. 4(October 2008) argues that the cost and
difficulty of resolving the greenhouse problem will be significantly greater than is foreseen by these two previous studies. Once the concentration of carbon dioxide and other gases
has reached 450 parts per million, Trainer presents evidence to show that the greenhouse problem cannot be solved without large scale reductions in the volumes of economic
production and consumption. He asserts that the greenhouse problem cannot be solved within a society committed to free market capitalism and affluent living standards, maximum
levels ofeconomic output, and economic growth. The limits to growth school, as presented by Ted Trainer, has been arguing for half a century that consumersocieties are
fundamentally unsustainable. Ted Trainer argues that the alarming greenhouse/ energy/ equity problems now threatening us cannot be solved within any capitalist/consumer society
but require a vast and radical transition to very different economic, political and value systems andstructures. A simpler way is the only way forward. We must drastically reduce
economic production and consumption. Is it possible to stop climate change and environmental pollution if we stop the emissions of heat trapping gases, such as carbon dioxide and
methane?A report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as presented in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, January 2009,proposes
that it is too late and that it will not be possible to stop climate change and environmental pollution. Many people who worry about globalwarming hope that once emissions of heat-
trapping gases decline, the problems they cause will quickly begin to abate. Now researchers are saying that such hope is ill founded, at least with regard to carbon dioxide.
Because of the way carbon dioxide persists in the atmosphere and in the oceans,and the way the atmosphere and the oceans interact, patterns that are established at peak levels
will produce problems like inexorable sea level rise
and Dust-Bowl-like droughts for at least a thousand years. According to this view, the damage has already been done!

5. GROWTH? STEADY STATE? The object of capitalist enterprise is to gain maximum profits for the entrepreneurs; to ensure growth. For capitalists, the preservation and
protectionof the environment is not a priority. The alleviation of poverty is not on the agenda. Under this system, citizens can save money and spend; or save,lend , borrow and
spend; can borrow against collateral and spend. If there is no hurry, one can save and spend. But once you realize that the Bankswill lend you money at once as long as you have
assets to secure the loan money, then most of us will borrow the money at once. On our promise topay principal and interest, the Bank will create the loan money on our balance
sheet as if by magic! That is, they do not make/print the money as cash. They write the contract on a balance sheet, and present the loan as digital money. Cash money does
provide the base for digital money.3% to 97%. A growth economy is based on fractional  reserve banking; on debt. When there is a financial crisis, it is based on fears of no growth
and default. As we have seen recently, the crisis is created by the banks: creating too much debt. It is not the
case that governments have no money. It is the case that Governments are the legal issuers of money, printers of money. Governments specify what is legal tender, or what is
known as fiat money. Money is printed by governments, but it is given to the bank consortia e.g the FederalReserve in the USA, the Bank of England in the UK, the European Bank
in the EU, who then decide the bank rate.;In fact, according to the present regulations, the State has only two ways to obtain money: one, is by taxation of citizens; the other is
borrowing fromthe private banks. When the Central Bank issues money, this is done in the form of a loan. The State has to borrow this money, and must promise torepay it, with
interest. Taxes are used to pay the interest not the principal. Over the years these loans form the national debt. For some countries, the national debt is so great that there is no
chance of repayment. In the USA, today, the national debt is $14.5 trillion, and the interest payments are$500 billion a year. These numbers are so large, that there has been a
major political dispute between the President/ the Congress/and the Senate in the last 3 weeks[2011] as to whether to pay off or default. In the UK, 2011, the national debt is 2.253
trillion GBP, with interest payments of 92 billionGBP. Usually, tax payments are used to pay the debt interest, not to pay for public services. The UK government has been involved in
a massiveprogramme of  budget cuts so as to control the national debt. However, it is important for us to realize that Governments could print the money it needs to pay for social
services. But we have established a banking system according to which governments and corporations and individuals borrow money, repay money, and pay interest for the
privilege, and do not print money.97% of money is digital money.;not notes nor gold. In fact, at this time, 3% of money in circulation is cash and notes; 97% is digital entries on
electronic records. So your bank can create money out of nothing, it can cash in the interest, and then it can uncreate that money, subsequently repeating the cycle with another
willing customer. Under the rules of fractional reserve banking, banks are not required to hold in cash the value of the loan. . A bank withGBP 1 million in cash can lend up to GBP
60 million. The bank does not have this money, it creates it: on a promise by the customers to pay principal+interest. This is highly unreliable and fraudulent. Banks are dealing
magic money.

6. Fractional Reserve Banking enables banks to issue loans that are many times their total holdings. The banks get away with it on condition that few clients claim their money
back. The recent financial crises occurred because many borrowers defaulted on their loans, failing to pay back the loans and not paying interest. When the depositors came for
their monies, there was a run on banks. The banks ran out of money. The system collapsed.Can the banking system be made more reliable and secure? Banking laws should be
changed to exclude the autonomous creation of money as debt  by banks and allow the issue of new currency by the governments. Full Reserve Banking demands that loan money
is backed by cash in the CentralBank: that is, GBP 60million in loans is matched by GBP60 million in cash.  The next stage is for governments to take over their legal currency  roles
and to issue money according to social need as social credits. The development of a Steady State Economy is one which does not depend upongrowth. It promotes the creation of
products according to social need. It will lead to a very different society: one which is not based on profit7. A full world? A poor majority? 400 years of capitalism has succeeded in
enriching a few, and leaving the majority of the world population in poverty. 10 million people control most of the global wealth,$40 trillion in 2010. And 1221 billionaires have $4
trillion. This leaves up to 6.8 billion people trying to survive and thrive with less than $30 a day;including 5.5 billion with less than $10 a day; and 1.4 billion starving on $1.25 a day.
When one talks about a full world as part of the capitalist growth economy, it can only refer to a minority. Even the richest countries in the world, such as China and India, have
millions of poor people. Inthe USA, 14% of the population is poor and unemployed. Across the world, 1 in 7 are involved in the manufacturing and consumption of all products,and
producing waste and pollution. Aspirations to a steady state economy will be subject to opposition from the poorest, none of whom have gained  any benefits from the operation of a
capitalist, free market, system. It would be better to focus upon the development of a system that alleviates the positions of the poorest majorities  and aspires to equality among the
7 billion people.
acknowledgement to NEF.Fisher,I.(1936a),100% Money, New York, AdelphiFrank,R,(2007)Falling Behind:How rising inequality harms the middle class,Berkely C.A.:
University of California PressFriedman,M.(1960) A Program for Monetary Stability.New York:
Fordham University Press.King,M,(2010)Banking:From Bagehot to Basel and Back Again”,
The Second Bagehot Lecture, Buttonwood Gathering, New York City, Monday 25thOctober 2010Nef (the neweconomicsfoundation),(2000),Creating NewMoney: A monetary reform
for the information age, authors:JamesRobertson and JamesHuber,London:nef
nef (the new economics foundation),2010,Where Did Our MoneyGo? Building a banking system fit for purpose, London:
nef Stiglitz,J,and Weiss,A.,(1981),Credit Rationing in Markets with Imperfect Information,AmericanEconomicReview,vol.71,pp.393
410Stiglitz,J.,andWeiss,A.,(1992)Asymmetric information in credit markets and itsImplications for macro-economics, Oxford Economic Papers, vol.44, no.4, October, pp.694-724
R.A.(1997),Towards a New Monetary Paradigm: a QuantityTheorem o f DisaggregatedCredit,withEvidence from Japan,
Kredit und Kapital,vol.30,no.2,pp.276-309,Berlin: Duncker und Humblot WernerR.,A(2009) Can Credit Unions Create Credit?An Analytical Evaluation of a Potential Obstacle to the
Growth of Credit Unions,Discussion Paper Series, No2/09, Centre for Banking, Finance and Sustainable Development, Southampton University
Wilkinson, R., and Pickett, (2009) The Spirit Level: Why more equal societies almost always do better, Allen Lane: London
Positive Money/New Economic Foundation/University of Southampton: 2010 Towards a 21st. Century banking and Monetary System

2. Democracy is a fantasy;Plutocracy is the reality.
November 1st. 2011, the OCCUPY MOVEMENT has spread across the world. It represents the fact that  99% of the global population has realisedthat most of the wealth of the world
is controlled by 1%. ;It is a declaration that the 99% should be directly involved in wealth redistribution byoccupying the premises of the banksters, the investors, that form the ruling
plutocracy.Taking a glance across the current pages of Social Ecology sites, [whether the Institute of Social Ecology, the New Compass, the Kommunalismi,Inclusive Democracy,
Green Fuse, ecologiesociale.ch., Zulenet], it becomes clear that direct democracy, libertarian municipalism and communalism are key concepts, and local democracy by all citizens,
a necessary practice. One has to conclude, first, that social ecology is local democracy. The writings of Murray Bookchin, as well as Takis Fotopoulos, Peter Staudenmaier,Janet
Biehl, Eirick Eiglad, Brian Tokar, Bob Spivey, Dan Chodorkoff, Karl Hardy, Chaia Heller, Vincent Gerber and Jussi Haverinen, among others,insist that the local government of local
neighbourhoods by all the local residents in local assemblies will ensure that all localities will be governed for the benefits of the local communities and their local environments. This
form of direct democracy is considered to be essential for the conservation and preservation of nature, wild life, environment, and the biosphere.One can conclude, second, that
local democracy is social  ecology. Certainly, there is an assumption that when people are directly involved in the management and government of the municipality where they live,
they will act to protect and conserve this environment. Further, it is assumed that they will not take actions that will foster growth, and exploitation. Another assumption is that these
citizens have the time and the will to make decisions in the interests of all, communal, rather than the one, anarchy. In such a direct democracy, [to refer to Bookchin’s Communalist
Project, 2002] the residents are enjoying and protecting the good life, self-sufficient,sustainable, with health, wealth and happiness. In the future, this may be the case across the
globe. But in 2011 this is a fantasy! What is more, I wish to propose that, at this time, democracy,be it direct, local, participatory, or representative, is a fantasy. It is a cover-up for
plutocracy, rule by the wealthy. In 2006, Warren Buffett assertedthat there’s class warfare, all right, but its my class, the rich class, thats making war, and we’re winning. In this class
war, the wealthy elite are in control of the many. The latest data indicates that 7 billion people including 2.2 billion children, live on earth. The wealth reports [Forbes, CapGemini,
Merrill Lynch, SundayTimes] that were issued up to February 2012 confirm that wealth is not distributed equally, and that poverty is the norm for mostof the global population. The
good life is a fantasy. There are at least 5.5 billion people, each surviving on less than $10 a day, of whom 1.5 billion live in absolute poverty, trying to survive on less than $1 a day,
of whom 1 billion are starving to death. Out of the total global population, perhaps1.38 billion are living on between $11 and $274 a day, with 480 million each surviving and thriving
on more than $100,000 a year, including 1226 billionaires with $4.6 trillion a year.The wealth reports confirm that we live in a world in which 10 million individuals [all of whom are
known and on record] accumulated $40 trillion GDP last year, that is; $4 million a year, or $11000 a day each. The global GDP in 2010 was $59 trillion. This means that 6.879 billion
people shared$19 trillion a year. Most of these people, who are found in China, India and sub-Saharan Africa, have less than $10 a day to feed their families. Fewer than 0.15% of
the world’s population control most of the wealth of the world and live in a capitalist paradise! able to spend more than $11,000 a day each: that is $44000 a day for a family of four.
Today, this capitalist elite of 10 million does not only live in the USA. They are to be found in theAsia/Pacific zone, of China, Japan, India, Singapore, Australia, where 3 million have
$9.7 trillion; the Europe zone, including the EU, UK, Russia,where 3 million have $9.5 trillion; and the USA, with Canada and Mexico, where 3.1 million have $10.1 trillion. These
zones include many of the dictators, and their families, across the world. The capitalist elite rule! The finances, economies, industries, governments of the world are controlledby 10
million ultra-rich capitalists, a global plutocracy.You may want to dispute the relevance of wealth to the governance of countries: And I must admit that I am assuming that wealth
means power and influence, or at least provides the means to buy and bribe people in power. I would remind you that the capitalist elite do own more than 80% of the capital of the
world, and so form the most significant group of investors and shareholders, and owners of the means of production. They are membersof boards of directors of all the major
corporations, and decide the salaries and bonuses of the executive officers. In October 2011, the FinancialTimes reported that they had been involved in the approval of pay
increases of 49% for CEOs; and pay freezes for many others.This elite of 10 million capitalists are the drivers of economic growth and development in any one region. If they are
upset, they can choose to invest their money elsewhere. Newspaper reports over the last year have shown that the recent financial crises have left them relatively untouched: those
inChina, Japan, India, Brazil, the UK, the USA, Germany and the EU have seen their fortunes expand by up to 33%! And even where there was trouble,they have been compensated
by the governments, who printed money, or paid tax revenues to them to restore liquidity. Their private debt was bought by the governments and the Central Banks. Private was
made public. And the poor lost their savings and their property. Recent events in the Middle East and North Africa have revealed that the governments of Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen,
Syria, Libya, Morocco, Jordan, Bahrain, are the fiefdoms of millionaire dictators and their families and friends.Their exercise of absolute power has finally been challenged by the
populace, for while many of the citizens of these various states have been living in absolute poverty, their leaders have been getting richer and richer,and living in absolute luxury.
Their displays of luxury and imposition of repression in their police states finally triggered rebellion.  The rebels have shown that if you attack the families, you attack the
governments; if you get rid of the families, you get rid of the governments.And is this the story of the rest of the world? First, there is overwhelming evidence that the gap between
the rich and the poor grows ever larger, andthe rich elites control the so called democratic governments of the industrial countries of the West, as well as the East. For example, the
cabinets of the USA, during the presidencies of Bush and Obama, as reported by the New York Times, and the BBC, have been dominated by millionaires, andthe corporations such
as Haliburton, Exxon, Chevron, Alcoa, and Boeing. A report in the Wall Street Journal revealed recently that 237 members ofCongress were declared as millionaires. In the UK,
newspapers such as the Daily Mail, and the Telegraph, reported in 2010 that the coalition government had 23 millionaires amongst the 29 members of the Cabinet! some
aristocrats, some entrepreneurs, some inherited. In Indonesia, thegoverning Senate of the Philippines has 23 Senators who are multi-millionaires. Recent reviews of the communist
regimes in China and North Korea indicated that the rulers are drawn from the elite members of the One Party! not from the poor majorities. Since the collapse of the USSR,
thegovernment of the Russian Federation has been dominated by the shenanigans of the oligarchs such as Abramovitch, Khodorovsky, Medvedev,Putin. The Indian government,
which has been declared the largest democracy in the world, has been accused recently of failing to curb corruption and bribery, and allowing the capitalist elite to develop projects
without any regard to local interests and conditions. There is overwhelming evidenceto show that local direct democracy  is at best a fantasy, and at worst a sham.Across the world,
local and national governments are the fiefdoms of the plutocracy, and are subject to bribery and corruption. 500 years of capitalist enterprise from Queen Elizabeth I to Queen
Elizabeth II has enriched less than 1% of the world’s population. Politicians beliefs, and financiers  assurances, about the trickle down effect of wealth is an outright con-trick! The
very wealthy plutocrats organize, and legislate the decisions and laws in finance, economics, investments, profits, in the interests of their corporations, banks, funds, and families,
under the protection of national  governments across the world. This is not to deny that billions of people in the USA, the EU, India, Japan, Brazil, Australasia, and so forth,
exercisetheir rights to vote in open elections.along with special interest groups who lobby and donate to the campaign funds of candidates and their parties.This is not to deny that
billions of people believe in democracy. But they vote for the wealthy elite on the grounds that they are the fittest. It simply confirms that the voters are living in a fantasy. The
enactment of democracy secures the power of the plutocracy! Are there any ways out of this dilemma? Is there an escape? One can step out of the system and live in an alternative
community. This will leave the field open for the elitists, and it will not prevent future interference from corporate exploitation. It may be possible to redesign democracy so
thatsocieties are more equal, and the financial systems are more closely regulated and supervised so that wealth is distributed for the benefits of all.A more radical approach would
be to remove the millionaire elite by disqualifying them from political institutions so as to make possible thedevelopment of local community initiatives and local democracy. I would
like to conclude by suggesting that social ecology is more than local democracy. The work of social ecologists such as Prof. Stuart Hill andTed Trainer in Australia, along with
Gunnar Rundgren in Sweden, and Bob Spivey in Vashon, as well as Brian Tokar, inUSA has established the significant connections between human communities and plants, soil,
sun, rain, climate, animals, fish, insects ;the complex systems of diverse ecologicalcommunities coexisting in the biosphere.For example, Stuart Hill offers a provisional definition of
social ecology that places greater emphasis on sustainability: the study and practice of personal, social and ecological sustainability and change based on the critical application
and integration of ecological, humanistic, relational,community and spiritual values. His definition is based on his work in agricultural settings, pest control, animal husbandry, and
sustainability.I suggest that social ecologists will study human behavior and climate change; the emission of pollutants and gases; the exploitation and destructionof forests, and
grasslands; the exploitation and mining of oils, ores and minerals; the destruction of species. They will formulate policies and practices to help conserve the biosphere. They will
identify alternative systems of economy and politics in order to ensure that humans live in mutualcoexistence with all living organisms. Local democracy may be part of these studies,
but only so far as it allows the development of alternativepractices of subsistence, sustainability, and steady state economics: a world in which we conserve and preserve the
ecological communities in the biosphere.

If we accept that Social Ecology leads us to a new morality, then we have to accept that capitalism and environmental protection are not compatible.The guiding light of the capitalist
is to maximise profits, and that of the ecologist is to safeguard nature. The United Nations declares that we shouldbe concerned with development that meets the needs of the
present without compromising 1.   CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY.
If we accept that Social Ecology leads us to a new morality, then we have to accept that capitalism and environmental protection are not compatible.The guiding light of the capitalist
is to maximise profits, and that of the ecologist is to safeguard nature. The United Nations declares that we shouldbe concerned with development that meets the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.The capitalist will claim the loyalties of the investors and the workers in order to maximise
profits for the company.It is 'grow or die!'.
Corporate Social Responsibility is a sham, a con trick perpetrated by companies to protect their commercial interests.
SocialEcologists argue: it is grow and die! Major health problems have become associated with capitalist enterprise. Medical authorities should take action to minimise the effects of
pollution on people.

TOBACCO  Obviously, the Tobacco corporations have a different notion of Corporate Social Responsibility to any other organizations. Tobacco companies see nothing wrong with
selling products that infect and kill their customers. They have been making cigarettes for many years, knowing that they were increasing the risks of chest infections and disease
amongst their customers. Chris Woolston ;[www.ahealthyme.com] reported that in the early 1960s,researchers at Brown  Williamson, one of the world's largest tobacco companies,
made a sickening discovery......... Smoking causes lung cancer.But, in public, the company claimed cigarettes were perfectly safe. Even that smoking is good for you. Behind closed
doors, their scientists searched for ways to remove cancer-causing compounds from cigarettes. As their own internal documents show, the search for a safe cigarette was doomed
from the start. The researchers found that burning tobacco produces a stunning collection of dangerous chemicals, no matter how it's grown, treated,or packaged. Simply put,
cigarettes are not safe! are not good for you! In the USA, this finding was confirmed in 1964 by the report of the SurgeonGeneral's Advisory Committee on Smoking and Health
which declared that cigarette smoking is causally related to lung cancer: the more you smoke,the more likely you are to contract lung cancer.........and chronic bronchitis........... and
chronic bronchopulmonary diseases.Today, of course, the secret is out. Everyone from the Surgeon General to the kid on the street corner knows smoking causes lung cancer. In
fact, itcauses the vast majority of all lung cancer, a disease that killed an estimated 160,000 Americans in 2007. Even the tobacco companies are now willingto admit the obvious.A
statement on the Philip Morris Web site says it all: We agree with the overwhelming medical and scientific consensus that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer, heart disease,
emphysema, and other serious diseases such as throat cancer, bladder cancer.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -November 28 2012.Major tobacco companies that spent decades denying they lied to the U.S. public about the dangers of cigarettes must spend their
own money on a public advertising campaign saying they did lie, a federal judge ruled on Tuesday.The ruling sets out what might be the harshest sanction to come out of a historic
case that the Justice Department brought in 1999 accusing the tobacco companies of racketeering.U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler wrote that the new advertising campaign would
be an appropriate counterweight to the companies' past deception dating to at least 1964. The advertisements are to be published in various media for as long as two years.Details
of the campaign - like how much it will cost and which media will be involved - are still to be determined and could lead to another prolongedfight.Kessler's ruling on Tuesday, which
the companies could try to appeal, aims to finalize the wording of five different statements the companies will berequired to use.One of them begins: A federal court has ruled that
the defendant tobacco companies deliberately deceived the American public by falsely selling and advertising low tar and light cigarettes as less harmful than regular cigarettes.
Another statement includes the wording: Smoking kills, on average, 1,200 Americans. Every day.The wording was applauded by health advocates who have waited years for
tangible results from the case.Requiring the tobacco companies to finally tell the truth is a small price to pay for the devastating consequences of their wrongdoing, said Matthew  
Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, an anti-tobacco group in Washington.These statements do exactly what they should do. They're clear, to the point, easy
to understand, no legalese, no scientific jargon, just the facts,said Ellen Vargyas, general counsel for the American Legacy Foundation, which is known for its Truth advertising
campaign that began in 2000 and was credited with curbing smoking by the young.The largest cigarette companies in the United States spent $8.05 billion (5 billion pounds) in 2010
to advertise and promote their products, downfrom $12.5 billion in 2006, according to a report issued in September by the Federal Trade Commission.The major tobacco
companies, which fought having to use words like ‘deceived’ in the statements, citing concern for their rights of free speech, had a muted response.We are reviewing the judge's
ruling and considering next steps, said Bryan Hatchell, a spokesman for Reynolds American Inc.Philip Morris USA, a unit of Altria Group Inc, is studying the decision, a spokesman
said.A spokesman for a third major defendant, Lorillard Inc, had no immediate comment.The case is USA v. Philip Morris USA, et al, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia,
No. 99-cv-02496. Separately, tobacco companies are battling in court with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over the warning labels on tobacco products.The FDA has
proposed new graphic warning labels - one of which includes a photo of a man with a hole in his throat. New graphic warnings have become compulsory on cigarette packets in
Australia as from December 1 2012.Despite this, their drive for sales continues. Their profits expand and grow, and many of their customers die from smoking their cigarettes! In
1980their research indicated that secondary smoke from cigarettes was toxic, but this was not made public for 20 years.March 15 2013: This ruling was confirmed by the Florida
High Court, when 6 judges found against the appeal by the principal tobacco companies.July, 2013 the FDA reported that menthol cigarettes are harder to quit. They are marketed
as 'light; but are just as dangerous as any othercigarettes. The FDA concluded that 'menthol' should be removed.What sort of Corporate Social Responsibility is this ? November
2010 the tobacco corporations are fighting a battle to stop health warnings covering their packets. Their defence is that such action prevents them from marketing their products
effectively and thus limiting their profits. A report in the NewYorkTimes, Nov.21 2009, made it clear that the tobacco companies considered product liability a cost of doing business.
Morgan Stanley asserted that the tobacco industry could afford millions of dollars a year in legal costs! For example, recently, in Fort Lauderdale, a woman was awarded by a jury
'compensatory damages' of $56million, and 'punitive damages' of $244 million, against Altria Group, the parent company of Philip Morris........ And there are hundreds of cases
waiting to becalled to court.  April 2011 a jury found in favour of the tobacco companies. Six major US tobacco companies defeated a lawsuit by hospitals seekingcompensation for
treating patients with smoking-related illnesses. Thirty-seven hospitals in the state of Missouri had claimed cigarette companies delivered an unreasonably dangerous product. They
sought more than $455m  reimbursement for treating uninsured smokers who had not paid for care. In the case, the hospitals claimed that tobacco companies manipulated the
nicotine content in cigarettes and misrepresented thehealth effects of smoking. But a jury in St Louis rejected their claim. The jury agreed with Philip Morris USA that ordinary
cigarettes are not negligentlydesigned or defective, said Murray Garnick of Philip Morris. March 2011 TPSAC [Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee] does conclude that
the availability of menthol cigarettes has led to an increase in the number of smokers and that this increase does have adverse public health impact in the United States. TPSAC
found evidence that the availability of menthol cigarettes increases initiation; leading to greater addiction. Ofparticular concern was the high rate of menthol cigarette smoking
among youth and the trend over the last decade of increasing menthol cigarettesmoking among 12 to 17 year olds, even as smoking of nonmenthol cigarettes declines. Evidence
showed that 'menthol' made smoking less irritating to youth, leading to their addiction to nicotine. Marketing 'menthol' keeps their sales rising! Spending $12.5 billion a year entices
adolescents in Asia to start smoking.The Department of Health in the UK, confirmed Dec.21 2011, that Imperial Tobacco, Japan Tobacco, British American Tobacco and Philip Morris
–had withdrawn their legal challenge against new laws to end the display of tobacco products in England. Sarah Woolnough, Cancer Research UK'sdirector of policy, said: We were
always confident that the tobacco industry would lose their case because the evidence shows that selling cigarettes alongside sweets and crisps makes them seem like a normal,
everyday product rather than a deadly and addictive drug. The Government will soon be consulting on putting cigarettes in plain packaging so that all tobacco products look alike,
with no distinctive branding and with large picture healthwarnings.Public Health Minister Anne Milton said: Removing tobacco displays from shops will help to stop young people from
starting smoking and help smokers that want to quit. Are the labels on the packets important?Who reads them ?-- Nine new graphic cigarette warning labels showing cancerous
lesions and other impacts of smoking were unveiled Tuesday,April 10 2012, by the Food and Drug Administration, USA, part of the agency's sweeping new powers to regulate
tobacco and tobacco products.[www.fda.gov]With these warnings, every person who picks up a pack of cigarettes is going to know exactly what risk they're taking, Health and Human
ServicesSecretary Kathleen Sebelius told reporters. Sebelius called smoking and other tobacco use the number one cause of preventable death in America,claiming more than
440,000 lives a year.Cigarette packages will now carry one vivid color image and one of these warnings about the consequences of smoking: Cigarettes are addictive Tobacco
smoke can harm your children Cigarettes cause fatal lung disease. Cigarettes cause cancer. Cigarettes cause strokes and heart disease. Smoking during pregnancy can harm your
baby. Smoking can kill you. Tobacco smoke causes fatal lung disease in nonsmokers and Quitting smoking now greatly reduces serious risks to your health.The warnings, which
must be in place by September 2012, will cover the upper portion of the pack both front and back. At least 50% of the packagewill have to be covered. In addition, the warnings will
have to cover at least 20% of a cigarette ad. Small ads less than 12 inches don't require the20% coverage, but must still have a warning. Each warning will also have a phone
number -- 1-800-QUIT-NOW -- that smokers can call to get helpif they want to quit.The world's biggest tobacco firms are challenging the Australian government in court, as reported
by the BBC April 17 2012 over a law on mandatory plain packaging for cigarettes. The suit, led by British American Tobacco, is being watched around the world as a test case.

Australia last year passed legislation requiring all tobacco to be sold in plain packets with graphic health warnings from 1 December 2012. It is the first country to pass such stringent
packaging legislation. The proceedings, being heard before the High Court in Canberra, are scheduled to run until Thursday. It is not clear when a decision might be reached. We're
very conscious that we're being watched around the world, Australian Attorney-General Nicola Roxonsaid. Countries such as Britain, Canada and New Zealand are considering
similar movesThe companies, including Philip Morris, Imperial Tobacco Australia and Japan Tobacco International, claim the law infringes their intellectual propertyrights by banning
the use of brands and trademarks. They argue that removing logos and company colours will lead to a drastic cut in profits and see fake products enter the market. They also say
that it is unconstitutional for the government to remove trademarks from packaging without compensation. Ms Roxon rejected the claims, saying that the sale and advertising of
tobacco had always been subject to laws and regulations. Thelaw, she added, was constructed ''in a way that it will have the most public health impact''. I think big tobacco's throwing
everything at it becausethey're scared it will be successful and they're scared it will be copied then around the world, she said. A spokesman for British American Tobacco told
Australian media that the company would prefer not to have had to take the government to court ''but unfortunately they have taken us down the legal path''. Under the law, the only
thing distinguishing tobacco brands on packets will be the brand and product name in a standard colour, position,font size and style. The government says the aim of the law is to
cut the number of smoking-related deaths.Why dont health authorities simply ban tobacco products ? make them illegal, and prosecute the tobacco corporations for selling products
that they all know damages and/or kills their customers?


But even when a product has been banned, like asbestos, its effects continue. Asbestos fibres can cause various forms of cancer. The World HealthOrganisation estimate that
1,700,000 people die world wide annually from asbestos poisoning. People who worked with asbestos 50 years ago are coming forward with mesothelioma today.  Others who were
present when buildings exploded, such as the World Trade Centre in 2001, were exposed to asbestos fibres, and many have died of asbestos cancers. The MAA Center [www.
maacenter.org] is one of the centres that monitors the manydifferent ways in which the companies producing asbestos continue to endanger the workers and users of asbestos
through the spread ofmesothelioma. The dangers of asbestos were known 100 years ago. Companies like Bendix, Borg Warner, Chevron, Chrysler, Dow Chemicals, Kodak, Ford,
GeneralElectric manufactured and sold asbestos products. ;Its use, and the profits generated, were more important than the lives of the workers and theconsumers. Mining and
processing was banned in the EU, 2005: but continues in Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Canada, Brazil. China is the majorproducer, and consumer of asbestos. Canada has long
banned the use of asbestos, but allows the mining and export of up to 120,000 tons of white asbestos each year from Quebec. It is worth noting that Asbestos products have not
been banned in the USA, and the Surgeon General did not issue a health warning until April, 2009. So Government agencies adopt contradictory attitudes to asbestos. Dr. Richard
Lemen, the retired assistant U.S. surgeon general and deputy director of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and now an adjunct professor of environmental
and occupational health at the Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University [2011] reports toEnvironmental Health Perspectives, that asbestos is a fibrous crystalline mineral
known for its resistance to heat and flame, and its usefulness in building materials and fabrics...but its not so great for human health.The International Agency for Research on
Cancer, the National Toxicology Program, and the Environmental Protection Agency all declared asbestos a known human carcinogen decades ago. And yet U.S. imports of crude
asbestos fibers rose by 235% between 2009 and 2010. Worldwide nearly 2million tons of it were mined for use in things like cements, automotive parts, protective footwear, and
textiles. All of Europe, many countries in SouthAmerica, and Saudi Arabia and others have banned asbestos. However, the United States has not seen fit to ban asbestos. The
health effects ofasbestos are wide ranging, from an asbestos-related lung condition called asbestosis, which is not a cancer but a scarring of the lung caused by thefibers that get
into the lung. Asbestos can cause a variety of cancers. The principal cancer is lung cancer and accounts for the most number of cancers associated with work with asbestos or
exposure to asbestos. Another very rare tumor but very fatal tumor is mesothelioma, which is a tumor that affects the lining of the lungs, in the pleura, the lining of the abdomen, and
this is a tumor that is unique to asbestos. About 80-90% of all mesotheliomas that are diagnosed in the United States are associated with some exposure to asbestos, so its become
what we call a signal tumor,and when we see mesothelioma occurring we can pretty much trace a history of exposure to asbestos. The International Agency for Research onCancer,
a part of the World Health Organization, has now designated asbestos to cause laryngeal cancer, ovarian cancer, and other forms of gastrointestinal cancer. So its one substance
that has had a wide variety of use but has been associated with multiple types of diseases including respiratory disease and cancer.I think we really don;t need to spend a lot of
research dollars on continuing research on something that has been determined by the World HealthOrganization and every major scientific agency in the world to cause cancer
and respiratory disease. What we need to do now is spend this money on preventing people from developing asbestos-related diseases both in the workplace and in the
environment. More than 60 countries have banned this substance. Whats taking the U.S. so long? As they always say, trace the money, and I think youll find why it has not been
banned in this country.D.W.Kamp [2009] observed that even if all new asbestos use stopped today, people would still be at risk of exposure from preexisting uses. Products,
especially building materials, degrade with age, releasing toxic fibers. Demolition, renovations, and reconstruction after disasters can release stillmore asbestos. And with a typical
latency period of decades between exposure and cancer, asbestos-related mesothelioma would continue to be diagnosed well into the future.December 10th 2009 marks the start of
the 'trial of the century' in Italy: two executives of the company, Eternit, have been accused of causing an environmental disaster leading to the deaths of 2,200 workers, and ill
health of hundreds of others, due to asbestos poisoning in four factories. OnFebruary 13th 2012 the court in Turin found ETERNIT guilty, and sent the two executives to prison.
Recently, August 2010, it has been announced on the BBC Africa service, that asbestos, serpentine, amphibole, are being mined in DemocraticRepublic of Congo........and in any
area where controls and regulation are weak...... And in Canada, for export.

ction can be taken to protect local communities from pollution. But as the legal battles between Chevron and the government of Ecuador show such actions are never
straightforward and can drag on for years. According to the New York Times, October 2009, the multibillion-dollar legal case between Amazon peasants and Chevron over oil
pollution in Ecuador’s rain forest keeps unfolding more like a mystery thriller than a battle of briefs.Since the oil giant released videos in August 2009 that were secretly taped by two
businessmen, Ecuadorean officials and Chevron have accusedeach other of gross improprieties, including espionage. Chevron gambled that the disclosure of the videos would
enable it to cast doubt on the integrity of the trial, and the honesty of the Ecuadorean legal system. But the tapes have also raised questions about its ties to the men who made the
recordings, potentially opening the company to a new legal fight. The tapes were the latest turn in a legal marathon over oil contamination left by Texaco years before it was
acquired by Chevron. The fight has become one about 'damages' not about environment. On Monday 14th February,2011, after 17 years of legal battle, the second-largest oil
company in the US, Chevron, was found guilty by Ecuadorian courts for massive  environmental contamination of the Amazon. Chevron was ordered to pay a fine of $9 billion in
damages. This is the largest judgement ever made against a US company for environmental contamination and is the first time that indigenous and farming communities have won
judgement in foreigncourts against a US company for environmental crimes abroad. From 1964 to 1990, Chevron made billions of $US in profits through oil extraction in the
Ecuadorian Amazon. In the long-running trial in US andEcuadorian courts, Chevron admitted to deliberately discharging around 18 billion gallons of toxic waste-water into the water
systems of the Amazon.The company committed a series of serious environmental crimes, such as spilling 17 million of gallons of pure crude oil from ruptured pipelines and
abandoning more than 900 unlined waster pits which leeched toxins, contaminating the air, soil and water. Chevron ordered workers to destroy records of these crimes and never
carried out any environmental impact studies.
May 2010 witnessed the oil pollution of the Gulf of Mexico, and the shorelines of Louisiana, following the destruction of ;the Macondo platform. Thechief executives of BP, in public,
were more concerned with minimising the significance of the oil spill, asserting that the quantities of oil were minor in comparison to previous spills. To say this, is to ignore the horror
of the catastrophe for the local communities, and the destruction of fisheries, and marine life. The US government has declared the oil spill the biggest ever ! If such oil companies
as BP ;took corporate social responsibility seriously,they would not have drilled for oil in such ocean localities in the first place: the Deep Water Horizon well extracts oil from a depth
of 2 miles!
July 2010 -the CEO of BP has paid the consequences of his public indifference by being dismissed.
Nov. 2011 the exploitation of the tar sands in Canada has led Shell into conflict with the First Nations of Athabaska for failure to meet contractual agreements.
In Nigeria, Shell are legally obliged to restoreOgoniland from the effects of oil pollution. 'Fracking', a process whereby oil and gas are forced out of the ground by water, has resulted
inearthquakes in Lancashire, UK. What sort of madness is this?
EARTH ACTION California, Fracking and Tomorrow’s Energy Posted: 26 Feb 2013 09:47 AM PST Just last month, California announced new policy proposals to regulate fracking;
yet despite bucking the pro-industry trend, the state has failed toplease concerned environmentalists. The process of fracking, which involves injecting the earth with sand, water
and chemicals, leaves environmentalists and certain scientists feeling uneasy. And its that last aspect  mainlining chemicals into the ground  that has many worried. Under the
proposed regulations in California, companies would be required to disclose the chemicals they are injecting into the ground. On its face, the proposed regulations strike a blow for
transparency. But of course, the devils in the details. These disclosures would be stored in a privatelyowned database, called FracFocus, that many claim is linked to the oil and gas
industry. Moreover, companies can claim ;trade secrets exemptions that would allow them to keep the chemicals that they use out of public knowlege.;Part of natural gas popularity
is that its seen as less harmful than coal, as well as less expensive.However a 2011 study by Cornell University found that natural gas could in fact be worse for the environment.
They warn that methane releasedmight be more harmful than our old friend CO2, as methane’s deleterious effect on the atmosphere is 105 times that of carbon dioxide. Disturbingly,
the study estimates that as much as 8% of the methane in shale reserves leaks into the air during the lifetime of a fracking well. In another study by the Pacific Institute in 2012 of
government, academic and private groups, many named water issues as a main concern. Chemicals leaked during thefracking process into the surrounding water supply can
jeapordize the quality of drinking water. And thats not to mention the sheer quantity of water needed to extract this energy  an increasingly touchy subject as Californians spar with
each other over water rights. The economic impact of a boom town.The boom and bust characteristic of an energy town will  hopefully  largely spare California, which has a diverse
and resilient economy. Yet the economic consequencesof fracking cannot be ignored. The rapid rise of a fracking economy raises the specter of an equally swift fall. ;Lingering
chemicals are but one aspect of the consequences of hydraulic fracturing. As yet unstudied are the effects of water contamination, earthquakes and the weakening of the social
fabric.(Anisha Sekar - EarthAction Contributing Writer) This article comes to you from the NerdWallet Credit Team.Drilling for Oil in the Arctic
Which oil company is dumb enough to go full speed ahead with its plans to drill in the Arctic? Not Shell, who after spending 7 years and $5 billiondollars on Arctic exploration was
forced to halt its 2013 plan to drill in the Arctic. A series of blunders and accidents including the grounding of its drillrig caused Shell to cancel its current plans to drill in the Arctic.
Not French oil giant Total SA, whose CEO says that ;energy companies should not drill for crude oil in Arctic waters because the environmental risks are too high.  Despite the
failures and doubts of its rivals, ConocoPhillips is the oil company dumb enough to stick with its current plans to drill in the Arctic

Mobile phones
And how should we regard Motorola or ATT? During the first week of December 2009, a story has emerged, in the New York Times, outlining thefacts about the marketing of cell
phones/mobile phones by Motorola during the 1960's. Both corporations have admitted that they knew that'multi-tasking' by the driver in the car, with a cell phone causes
distraction, and accidents, and death....... So of course they mounted a campaign  against the use of these phones by drivers? Not a bit of it. Motorola mounted a campaign
promoting their use by lorry drivers. Motorola was tooconcerned about its market share. Since this time, they have developed 'hands-free' mobile phone kits fitted in the car and
lorry. This is despite the fact that they are aware that 'multi-tasking' is dangerous: leading to 2,600 fatal crashes, and 570,000 accidents in the USA, in 2007. In Dec 2009,the BBC
reported that the Transport Research Lab.UK revealed that in London the use of mobile phones in vehicles was on the increase, despite the fact that it was illegal.Another example
of the incompatibility of CSR and capitalism! January 2010, the lawmakers of States are ;drawing up legislation to control 'distracted driving'. Four bills are pending in Congress that
would push the states to regulate various types of cellphone use by drivers, including banning texting, requiring hands-free devices or prohibiting motorists under the age of 21 from
using any devices. In the USA, generally, states regulate their roadways ; which is why, safety advocates say, the actions of state lawmakers play such a critical role in addressing
the issue. (Currently, 19 statesand Washington D.C. ban texting while driving, and six states and Washington require use of hands-free devices by motorists talking on phones.)
InDecember, 2009, the House of Representatives passed an order banning 8,000 House staff members from texting while driving (following an order signed in October by President
Obama banning 4.5 million federal employees from texting in state-provided cars or phones or during work hours).Nov.2011; a court in California ruled that using a hand held phone
at a traffic lights is part of the ban, and illegal.December 14 2011, the US National Transportation Board issued a report urging all states of the US to ban all use of mobile phones in
automobiles.Their research into the links between distracted drivers and accidents over the last 10 years had forced them, in the face of opposition from phonemakers and
carmakers, as well as lawmakers, to draw the conclusion that mobile phones in autos are dangerous!
December 2011, there are 3 billion users of mobile phones across the world. Mobile phones are best regarded as transmitters of microwaves, exposing their users to radiation. To
put it another way: 3 billion people are directly subject to the effects of micro-wave radiation, and may be subject to skin rashes, brain tumors, sleeping disorders. Governments and
manufacturers know this, but say nothing....... so as to create doubt about any'bad effects'. However, on April 26 2012, the Health Protection Agency in the UK issued a report that
declared that there is no hard evidence of bad health effects from mobile phones. The report confirmed that the greatest dangers of mobile phones is their use in cars and lorries,
leading to'distracted driving'.
February 2013: Despite the extensive evidence that the use of cell phones, and what are now called smart phones, is bad for your safety, we are constantly bombarded by adverts
extolling the wonders of the smart phones - iPhone, Samsung, Nokia, Blackberry, Huawei, LG, Motorola, Sony and their 'Apps' ; as well as the necessity to tweet/text messages.
These smart phones have become so complicated that they are known to initiatedistracted behaviour, whether on foot, or bicycle, or vehicles. But of course Apple, and the other
manufacturers, are only concerned about sales not safety. Researchers at the University of Utah, and Virginia State Institute, have shown clearly that the major problem is
'distracted driving'. The use of mobile phones to talk, to text, to game, while driving, results in the distraction of the driver, and the greater likelihood of being involved in a crash.........
to be as impaired as a drunk driver!

Indeed the current fad for corporate social responsibility can be seen as a strategy to persuade workers and customers that their best interests are provided by the corporation.
However, we must not forget that the prime objective of a capitalist corporation is to maximise profits for the shareholders and the directors. INSnet newsletter in January 2008
signalled that the countries that are acknowledged as the biggest polluters were gathering inHawaii to see if they can reduce their pollution and safeguard profits. The G8, the G20,
the G77, the UN, the IMF, the World Bank, continue to meet and discuss up to the present time [Nov/Dec 2009]. If this is best achieved by being more careful about how they look
after the workers, take care of their customers or conserve the environment, then so be it. But once the profits are threatened, the workers will be sacked, and the resources
exploited once more. This has been clearly illustrated by the battles about the exploitation of the Amazon forests. Recently, increased demands and the prospect for profits has
accelerated exploitation by the very companies that had promised protection and conservation. For example, McDonalds has been encouraging the growth of soya beans, which has
led to the resumption of clearing of forests for farmland. Elsewhere, in the forests of  Indonesia, Wilmar, a palm oil producer, has been caught by Friends of the Earth, violating its
own CSR policies by cutting forests and occupying land without permission. Ethics World tells us that an assessment of the Dubai Ethics Centre's efforts highlights the glaring gap
between the rhetoric of corporate social responsibility and the reality of most business practices..  Companies are becoming familiar with the term 'corporate responsibility' and they
recognize the need to be saying the right things in this rapidly developing, highly competitive international marketplace [and] yet their actions, if not the words, prove that they
remain unconvinced or unclear of the business case for corporate responsibility and the benefits successful CR management could bring to them in terms of mitigating risk and
identifying  opportunities concluded the DERC-commissioned report.There can be a lot of greenwash !I am arguing that capitalism and corporate social responsibility cannot go
together.Capitalism is a system of exploitation in which products are bought and sold for profit: to care and share; and ;conserve and recycle; are regarded as means to ends, not
ends in themselves. It is easy to see this as the fault of private enterprise. But we must remind ourselves that the emergence of  communist China as a major economic power
indicates that capitalism can be state controlled, 'authoritarian capitalism' , and generate major pollution in every corner of the country in the search for wealth.Furthermore, I am
suggesting that capitalism and democracy do not go together. Capitalism results in the profits going to an elite, the owners ofcapital. The recent UN reports indicate that this elite
comprises 0.000015% of the world’s population, who control +80% of the wealth. What sort of world is this!If at this time the millionaires forgot about growth and actively redistributed
their existing wealth, it would make a significant difference to all the others.But under a capitalist system that elite are forever trying to increase their share at the sacrifice of
everyone else. This is oligarchy and patriarchy. How can we take seriously the notion of a share owning democracy ?Even those who are involved in charitable works make sure that
everybody knows where the money comes from..Social interdependence and social responsibility are to be sought in tandem as part of a cooperative system, what has been called
a cooperacy, not part of an exploitative capitalist system.It was a significant development to see that the President of Bolivia, Evo Morales, proposed scrapping capitalism and
developing clean energies as part of radical measures to save the planet and mankind.;If we really want to save the planet, we must eliminate the capitalist system, Bolivia's first
indigenous president told hundreds of indigenous delegates from around the world at the UN in April 2008. Morales argued that the capitalistsystem was mainly responsible for
climate change and for the accumulation of waste. He also railed against the development of biofuels which he said only serve to fuel poverty and hunger and instead he expressed
strong support for clean energies. Biofuels are very harmful, in particular for the poor people of the world, he later told reporters. The leader called for respect of Mother Earth,
guaranteeing access to basic services for all and putting an end to consumerism. He noted that indigenous peoples had a different perspective on life, including a stronger
commitment to socialjustice and a preference for communal ownership of the land. Mother Earth is not a commodity. It's not something to buy and sell, he said. And he proposed an
international convention to protect water resources and prevent their privatization by a few. [as reported in www.insnet.org]. In January2009, Morales made it clear that the
increasing world wide demand for the lithium in Bolivia will lead to increased prices for the benefits of the total population.Environmentalists have already realised that if and when
the poor majority of the world demand a better way of life, the exploitation and pollution of theworld will accelerate out of control. If we listen to Ted Trainer of the University of New
South Wales, future practises will have to be significantly different:If all 9 billion people soon to be living on earth were to consume resources at the present per capita rate in rich
countries, world annual resource production rates would have to be about 8 times as great as they are now. All estimated potentially recoverable resources of fossil fuels (assuming
2t tonnes of coal) would be exhausted in about 18 years.If all 9 billion were to have the present US timber use per person, the forest area harvested would have to be 3 to 4 times all
the forest area on theplanet.If 9 billion were to have a North American diet 4.5 billion ha of cropland would be required, but there are only 1.4 billion ha of cropland in use, and this is
likely to decline.The drive for growth, whether by the rich or the poor, has a limited future.[after Ted Trainer]You may want to argue that social responsibility and capitalism must go
together. If corporate social responsibility as currently practised is a sham,what should be done to make it a reality?Ethics World newsletter tells us that www.policyinnovations.org.
reports, Much of the past fifty years has been characterized by a corporate attitude of denial or obligation. Only over the past fifteen to twenty years havecompanies begun to look
at social and environmental challenges as business opportunities,either by greening; their current products and processesor by moving beyond greening to technologies that
leapfrog us into the future and make incumbent technology obsolete through a process 0f creative destruction.Looking forward, however, the greatest opportunity may lie not in
reaching only the wealthy of the world with clean technology, but the six billion plus at the base of the economic pyramid which have historically been bypassed, underserved, or
ignored by economic globalization. To do so will require not only technological ingenuity, but also disruptive new business models and a willingness to listen and co-create rather
than impose new technologies from the top down. For example, Muhammad Yunus and the Grameen Foundation wants us to run 'social businesses', no loss,nodividend companies,
organised to achieve social objectives, such as health care, sanitation, education, clean water.What could be done to promote CSR?What and where is the company? Offices,
factories, warehouses, fields, forests, mines, water. Is it part of the neighbourhood or alien? Does the company endeavour to link with thelocal communities.If you are from another
area, or region, or country, make sure you manage the enterprise in the interests of the locale. Organise the enterprise in tune with the local cultures. On the assumption that you
are a capitalist enterprise, invest an agreed amount of your profits into the improvement of the local area. Do not simply take the money and run.A fair days pay for a fair days work.
Pay the workers at all levels a fair wage as negotiated by all parties. Do not contrive to pay below the minimum wage. Ideally, one could pay everybody in the company from shop
floor to office the same wage.Provide the whole work force with benefits that will help them to work e.g. health services, medical care, work protection such as ear defenders,
facemasks, showers where necessary, changing rooms, toilets; family leave, creche facilities.Bus services to and from work; conference meetings by internet, and audio/video links;
no company cars.Fair wages. Fair treatment. Fair trade : tea, coffee, soft drinks, milk, fruit, vegetables. Fair Prices.All processes to be operated by renewable energy: solar, wind,
water. In many locations where there is flowing water, why not return to the water mill?If the company is producing finished products, say furniture; then use recycled wood.If it is
buying farm produce, make sure that you do not cheat the farmers: like paying one penny a kilo, and selling on for 1000 pennies a kilo.In such a CSR company, the priority is
offering a fair deal to workers, the suppliers, and the customers. In a company where profit is the only motive,it is important to cheat the workers, suppliers, and customers so as to
maximise profit, and of course, protest that you are being as fair as possible!For a company that is manufacturing a finished product, it is essential to cater for any pollution risk from
the first design, rather than discover it after everything has been built. Factories that belch their polluted smokes in to the atmosphere do so because the company does not care.
And the localinspectors cannot be bothered to take action, or are bribed by the companies to do nothing. It is no good imposing a fine. The factory has to be rebuilt or closed down.If
any of these actions were taken, there would be significant changes to current practices immediately.All the developing countries, that are claiming their places in the new
economies will not be able to enjoy the luxuries of the North American and European capitalists. ;The West will have hoodwinked the rest yet again!The force of Ted Trainer’s
arguments is that we cannot go on as before. It will all change whether we like it or not, and we shall have to face theconsequences.I accept that you may not want to go as far as
Trainer’s forecasts. But it is time for a seed change in our thinking. ;Exploitation leads us to see otherpeople, plants and animals as objects to be used and abused. Our thinking is
dominated by competition and individualism. Within this mindset,social responsibility is just another way to take advantage of those objects Growth involves expansion and greater
profits. A company that makes the same profit as the year before is seen to be failing. Expansion means that more land, more resources, are consumed and converted into products
and profit. This capitalist cycle will have to stop.Already, in the wake of the credit crunch of 2007/8/9, responsible financiers are questioning free markets, and calling for greater
regulation, and suggesting the extension of redistributive taxes. Even senior officers such as S.Roach at MorganStanley, a principal investment bank, are raisingquestions about
unfettered capitalism. At one level you could argue that the financial corporations should regulate themselves more rigorously. At another level, one has to admit that the crunch
occurred because these financiers were busy offering packages to a wider range of customers so as to seek growth, and to maximise their profits. In other words, they were doing
what they are supposed to do! in a capitalist system. And they arelooking for greater regulation because many of the key players like JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs,
Merrill Lynch, Lehmann Brothers,BearSterns, CitiGroup, and SocGen, Barclays, Northern Rock have lost millions for themselves, and of course.for their clients.Some environmental
organisations, such as Earth Action, World Wild life Fund, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, LiveGreen, and Ted Trainer’s TheSimpler Way [www.ssis.arts.unsw.edu.au] see the
capitalist search for growth as the key to exploitation and destruction. The fact that most companies are not satisfied with stability as the norm, and are busy pursuing greater growth
and market share, drives them to produce more and to devise a wider range of other products. For example, local supermarkets will offer 2 for 1 to increase their turnover. But the
impact of this is to increasedemands for greater production in the field and under glass, and the ploughing up of forest or scrubland in different parts of the world.The history of
Walmart in the USA has shown the devastating effects on the environment of low prices and bulk demands. www.walmartwatch.com report that Walmart promote organic foods, even
though many products sold are not organic. Their superstores create significant atmospheric pollution and water erosion. Their insistence on low prices forces farmers to adopt
industrial farming methods, thus altering the ecology of the locality.The fact that they buy many products from China, and are in fact their fifth largest trading partner, means that
they are part  of the pollution cycle in China.We have to conclude that a fair price is not always a low price. It is a price that allows farmers to cultivate in eco-friendly ways; and is
affordable to the consumers; and generates profit for the shop and the farmer. Walmart Watch are clearly indicating that big-block superstores and their systems of bulk purchase
and global transport are unsustainable in the future, and need to be replaced by smaller mini-markets. The future should be local suppliers for local customers. One could argue
that if we were part of a system in which the price of any product was the sum of costs, plus a premium for services, then there would be no need for price competition. Or is that
being too naive? The culture of capitalism means that one is free to use your own , and other people.s, capital for your personal profit; to use the labour of others for your own
profit; to organise companies so that they make the most profit for you. When these cultural beliefs are associated with the culture of paternalism, some individuals are given greater
value than others. For example, the father is the leader of the family, and the lines are drawn for systems of patriarchy, in which the father is the most important individual, to whom
homage is owed. My analysis has revealed that the capitalist  system of the world is controlled by many such families. It is run by the ;barons of capital. When associated with elitism,
those individuals deemed to be the most able, and the richest, are allowed to form an upper class distinct from the rest, with the power to control the rest. Recently, LloydBlankfein of
Goldman Sachs went so far as to declare that such an elite is 'doing God's work '! ;In such a closed system what does corporate social responsibility mean? I want to argue that
whether we see ourselves as individuals equal to all others; individuals independent of all others; individuals as part of a patriarchy; elders of the tribe; or members of an elite; we
live in conditions of social interdependence. The one depends on the many for survival, for prosperity, for language, for culture, for education, for work, for support, for love,
creativity, skills. And of course each one of us benefits from, and contributes to, the networks of social interdependence.
Social ecology leads us to think and act in the interests of all humans, animals, and plants.
Social ecology focuses on working  in cooperation; setting up cooperatives.
Social responsibility involves the seed change in our thinking that Thabo Mbeki is looking for, and leading us
to new ways of behaving that will benefit all: a new morality!