globaleconomicjustice-blog

[globaleconomicjustice-blog]

New Opportunities: Tech for Africans by Africans

By Eliza Petrella 

Technology has a very important role in today’s life, in fact, it dictates pretty much everything we do. Technology, despite not having a very dictating role as for us in the developed part of the world, it plays a fundamental part in developing countries as well. Recently technology, because of its accessibility to individuals and the high freedom that comes with using it, has improved the lifestyle of many people’s local businesses or simple daily activities. While it might have a different role and less popularity in, for example, Africa than it does in the United States, it is still present and impactful.

Srinivasan in Whose Global Village Talks about the different roles and opportunities that come with the new technology in developing countries, especially in Africa. his argument is mostly against freedom of opportunities that western social media platforms offer to the developing countries. Because platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, are mainly created from Western for Western, which increases the divide between the two spheres, these actually make the poor poorer and the rich richer in fact, “If the practices associated with expanding technology access fail to challenge inequality, then technology is likely complicit with the dynamics that perpetuate stratification” (53). What Srinivasan is implying is that these pre-established platforms come with a cultural background that is very different from that of developing countries, so “one must understand the practices of local community life, place, context and culture to rethink the practices by means of which we collaboratively design and develop new technology projects” (53). It is important to note, though, that the internet and the new technology does come with an opportunity of freedom of possibilities if the means and modes of production and accessibility are proportionated to the targeted country and population.

In site and hope to change this inequality problem at the root of technology and networks, Andela, a startup from 2014 that trains developers in Africa and hires them out to global tech companies, might be a way to close the gap. The purpose of Andela is “to take an underutilized talent pool to help alleviate a global shortage of software developers,” as explained in an article on TechCrunch (Shieber). The company has recently gained a lot of attention as many important tech companies and associations have invested in Andela, including Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, GV, Spark Capital, DBL Partners, Amplo, Salesforce Ventures, and others (Shieber). While the concern and the risk may be that because of the headquarters of this country is in North America, New York, this company will take attention away from local startups in Africa, the idea of training Africans to code and create technology can lead to widespread opportunities that go beyond employment at major Tech industries. In fact, there is no binary contract that comes with this training program. Graduated professionals have the opportunity to be recruited but, then, having the knowledge, have the opportunity to create new platforms for their own country or local community starting a new role of technology created by and for locals without western structural implications, that Srinivasan talks about in the book.

What is Andela?

Today there are Andela campuses in various parts of the African continent: Lagos, Nigeria, Nairobi, Kenya and Kampala, Uganda, and the idea is to expand even more to give more possibilities and easier accessibility. Accessibility, though, is not only intrinsic to the location, in fact, there are online training programs as well: “not only does Andela instruct people in person, but 20,000 aspiring programmers across Africa have used its free online learning and training tools,” as explained in a New York Times article (Lohr). There are high hopes for Andela, and it has already changed many lives, and “advance human potential and promote equality,” thus bridges the gap that Srinivasan criticizes (Lohr).

Bibliography 

Andela. (2014). What is Andela?. YouTube. Video. https://youtu.be/vhJik9S9nxg

Lohr, S. (2017)“Start-Up Bets on Tech Talent Pipeline From Africa.” The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/10/business/andela-start-up-coding-africa.html

Shieber, J. (2017) “Andela, a tech training and development outsourcer for African coders, raises $40M.” TechCrunch. https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/10/andela-a-tech-training-and-development-outsourcer-for-african-coders-raises-40m/ 

Srinivasan, R. (2017). Whose global village?: Rethinking how technology shapes our world. New York, N.Y.: New York University.

[globaleconomicjustice-blog]

A New Kind of Justice System

By Cassidy Riley

The book Viking Economics explores a very different economic system than the one currently displayed in America and many other countries.  It is a system designed to benefit the individual person as well as society as whole through higher taxes that fund many social programs.  George Lakey argues in his book that this system creates a more equal and prosperous society and it is easy to see the proof of this claim through by analyzing the differences between America and the Scandinavian countries, especially Norway.  

One of the most interesting of these is the difference in the role of the justice system in the two countries.  The American prison system is immense, with over 2.3 million people currently incarcerated in state prisons, federal prisons, and local jails.  America has the highest incarceration rate in the world, with 716 people in jails for every 100,000 citizens.  These people are in jail for many different reasons as the linked page shows.  Some have committed terrible crimes such as murder while a staggering one in five prisoners are incarcerated for drug related crimes.  But perhaps it can be said that one of the larger reasons for so many of these people to be behind bars is because of the many failures of the american justice system.

This is a system based on punishment and separation not rehabilitation as the norwegian prisons are.  American prisons are designed only to separate and protect the good, normal society from the deviant prisoners.  It does not seem to matter what happens to the prisoners or how long they have stay in prison as long as they are kept far away from all the “normal” people.  This may work for prisoners who are serving life sentences, but it is completely unfitting for prisoners who will eventually reenter society.  This system does nothing to fix the current problem and instead perpetuates a cycle of criminal behavior.  

Norwegian prisons are very different both in how they treat their prisoners and the impact they have on society.  The prisons are there to help society by helping the prisoners, though rehabilitation, therapy, and eventually give them a second chance at being a contributing and productive member of society.  As George Lakey puts it “Their prisons are not training schools for a life of crime; instead they are part of an economic system that wants offenders to rejoin the community—and become taxpayers as soon as possible.”

In fact, there is no life prison sentence or death sentence in Norway.  The longest time a prisoner can serve is 21 years.  Because almost all criminals will reenter society, the jails try to mimic normal society as much as possible.  The picture below is from the Halden prison in Norway.  This prison has no bars on its windows, has a kitchen area where the prisoners can prepare their own food, and is surrounded by a park area that the prisoners can use for recreation. 

The guards in Halden follow this mentality as well.  Their official job description says they must motivate the inmate "so that his sentence is as meaningful, enlightening and rehabilitating as possible," they even eat meals and interact with the prisoners during recreation time. 

This may seem like a risky program, to put dangerous people back into society with the hope that they won’t make the same mistakes again but it is a system that works.  Norway has a much lower reincarceration rate than the United States with impressive stats showing that “within two years of their release, 20 percent of Norway’s prisoners end up back in jail. In the UK and the United States, the figure hovers between 50 percent and 60 percent.”

Of course it is only possible to get these kind of numbers when the prisons are designed to with rehabilitation in mind.  Prisons in Norway do not see the sense in punishing inmates any further once they are in prison because they see the loss of freedom as a large enough punishment.  Lakey discusses this and comments, “They therefore set up correctional institutions for rehabilitation. Norway has no capital punishment or life sentencing. Prison terms are short and families are encouraged to stay close to their incarcerated member” (Lakey 162).

This prevents prisoners from becoming normalized to a harsh and violent prison life before being thrown back into regular society.  If it stands to reason that the environment a person exists in shapes their personality and mannerism, then it would make sense to put prisoners in an environment where they can find learn and find healthy meaning in their lives rather than one full of violence and no opportunity to grow.  The latter kind of prison will not be successful in changing criminals behavior and setting them up for a better future.  Along with boasting a lower incarceration rate, Norway also has much lower rate for many different types of violent crime such as rape and murder than the United States.  This would seem to contradict the common argument that jails need to be terrible and violent places in order to act as a deterrent for crimes.  

Norwegian prisons also work with their prisoners to help them find a new job once they are released.  Many of the prisons, like the one mentioned above, help the prisoners learn new trades and help them connect with employers once they have been released.  Helping the person find a new purpose and a legal way to support themselves causes a major drop in the likelihood of that persons return to criminal behavior. 

 Having a safer society with less people in prisons has an obvious positive affect on the economy.  A society is more productive when the citizens feel safer and they are more likely to invest in their future and the future of the country if they feel secure.  Less people in jails means more people to contribute to society in the form of jobs and paying taxes.  

In the end, the Norwegian justice system does its best to create a better future, both for the prisoners that are incarcerated and for the country as a whole.  

Sources:

https://phys.org/news/2016-08-norwegian-prisons-criminal.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-norways-prison-system-is-so-successful-2014-12

http://content.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1989083,00.html

[globaleconomicjustice-blog]

Viking Economics

Tess Judge

George Lakey talks about the idea of flexicurity in his book, Viking Economics. He describes this idea, saying, “the Danes changed the social contract between the state and the workforce. Instead of guaranteeing workers their existing jobs, the government would guarantee workers ongoing support and retraining so they could get a new job” (page 15). 

He talks about this idea of flexicurity as a great plan, that reduces unemployment, but is it really that great of a plan?

Joakim Malmberg, who worked in Denmark for a while, has a very different perspective of this plan. He talks about how frequently people get fired, and you never really know when it might happen. He says it makes people unsettled, and “unsettled employees are hardly more productive. They don’t dare to be uncomfortable and they rarely take risks. That makes for a lousy climate for innovation, which seems to be the most important factor for tackling the increasingly global competition.” People end up being scared that they’ll lose their jobs, that they take less risks, and there is less innovation because of this.

            Frank Hoffer discussed the idea of flexicurity as well. When describing the progress of its implementation, however, he said that “growth remained below the long-term average, unemployment remained rather high and productive growth sluggish.” He also talked a lot about the fear that uncertainty puts into the workplace, also saying that “flexicurity largely disguises the shift of the flexibility burden from the entrepreneur to the worker.” The employees now have to deal with the fact that there is no certainty in their job, and they’re the ones who have this huge burden of adapting to new jobs all the time.

Sources

http://nordic.businessinsider.com/i-used-to-praise-the-flexible-danish-labor-market---but-working-in-denmark-made-me-question-everything-i-had-learnt-2016-9

https://www.socialeurope.eu/flexicurity-the-broken-promise

[globaleconomicjustice-blog]

Creating a Work/Life Balance: Child and Family Policy in the United States v. Nordic Countries

Haley Pangan

George Lakey’s book, Viking Economics, is a catalogue of policy and cultural acceptances that make the Nordic countries so progressive and egalitarian and have solved, as Lakey claims, a majority of issues surrounding social justice. The European socialist views he presents include several topics such as education, taxes, equality of minorities, climate change, poverty, and many others. As Lakey is originally a U.S. citizen, these areas of policy are largely compared to those of the United States.

I found Lakey’s chapter on Creating Work/Life Balance especially interesting because it explains the Nordic work model with a focus on the correlation between efficiency and number of hours worked. Lakey presents research that asserts while the average United States worker works 1,790 hours per year, the average Norwegian work 1,418 and produces 27.8 percent more per hour than us. Additionally, Lakey points out the benefits that Norwegians are given with a higher amount of vacation time and parental leave. It seems that many of these factors are contributive to a happier and more balanced worker which serves long term benefits for not only the citizens but both the Nordic employers and governments.

With recent talk of Trump administration policies surrounding parental leave and work benefits for parents, I decided to look into the ideas presented by the United States government. According to the Associated Press, “Trump in August had proposed reducing child care costs by allowing parents to fully deduct the average cost of childcare from their taxes. He is expected to flesh out that plan Tuesday, including expanding the deduction to include costs associated with caring for elderly dependent relatives”.

While a lack of research and a variance in family situations prevents us from knowing long-term effect of such governmental policies and benefits, a Unicef study concludes that “two challenges remain even in the presence of family-friendly workplaces. First, working mothers continue to be the primary caregivers for their children, experience career interruptions and suffer from the double burden of working within and outside the household throughout their lives. Second, the family-friendly policy model frequently excludes low skilled and low-wage workers, working mothers in particular, and typically benefits higher-paid workers”.

Perpetuating these issues almost perfectly, the Trump administration proposes 6 weeks of maternal leave, no paternal leave, and tax deduction for childcare costs. “[A]s a tax deduction, rather than a tax credit, critics say the plan would primarily help more affluent households. More than 40 percent of U.S. taxpayers don't make enough money to owe taxes to the federal government, meaning they would not benefit from a deduction”.

By contrast, Lakey’s book discusses how Norway was “the first country in the world to establish a scheme that incentivizes dads to take more responsibility for their children. A paid leave of absence from the job is set aside for the father; if he doesn’t take it, the couple can’t transfer that time to the mom”. (134) Norway employees receive 52 weeks of fully paid parental leave. In Finland, parental leave can start 7 weeks before the estimated due date, and 16 additional weeks post-birth.

Trump Administration policies surrounding parental leave fall extremely short in comparison to the Nordic model. 6 week of maternal leave, no paternal leave, and tax deduction rather than tax credit for child care costs.

“What impact would an early childhood benefit have in the United States? As suggested earlier, the United States has historically had more generous childcare than parental leave provisions. Therefore, in the U.S. context, giving parents a grant that they could use to either stay home or purchase child care could give parents, mainly women, an incentive to spend more time at home. This may or may not be better for children (many experts feel that the typical period of maternity leave taken in the United States is too short, but the evidence that children of mothers who return to work early are harmed by this is mixed). Such a shift may or may not be better for parents (because lengthy periods out of the labor market can have long-term negative effects on the employment and earnings of parents-mainly mothers)”.(Waldfogel 109)

https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2016/09/13/four-reasons-trump-s-parental-leave-and-child-care-plan-doesn-t-add/213046

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1602812?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

http://www.businessinsider.com/countries-with-best-parental-leave-2016-8

https://www.unicef.org/sowc07/docs/sowc07_panel_3_2.pdf

Jane Waldfogel, International Policies toward Parental Leave and Child Care, The Future of Children

[globaleconomicjustice-blog]

The Scandinavian Model of Poverty Reduction Through Prisoner Rehabilitation

By: Cassie Murphy 

As George Lakey argues in “Viking Economics”, the Scandinavian approach to economic justice is a fascinating one. Lakey provides countless examples of the ways in which Scandinavian societies, under the economic policies he dubs ‘viking economics’, have thrived in economic, social, and political endeavors and measures. One such endeavor is reducing crime and the prison population. 

As Lakey writes in his chapter “Preventing Poverty”, the statistics speak for themselves. Sweden has one of the lowest incarceration rates in the world, with a mere seventy out of every 100,000 people being incarcerated. Norway and Denmark boast similarly low rates. Lakey even provides the anecdote of the 2013 shooting of an armed man by the police. The shooting was followed by a period of national soul searching. By comparison, the United States alone has shot nearly nine-hundred people so far in 2017 alone (Lakey 167). This is not to suggest only that incarceration and crime rates are lower in the Nordic countries, but also that their attitudes of crime are markedly different than the United States, in which crime is seen as a part of life.

The question then becomes about how the Scandinavians were able to reduce their crime rates so effectively. In an era in which mass incarceration rates are consuming staggering amounts of state resources, exploring alternatives is crucial.

The Nordic alternative focuses on the rehabilitation of prisoners in place of merely punishing prisoners. The basic sentiment of this alternative is that if a person commits a crime, they are unfit to be a part of society. Thus, they are sent to prison until they are ready to return. While the person is in prison, they receive assistance for underlying medical, mental, or substance issues, as well as vocational training. Prison is a place to go, not a place to stay, and it certainly is not a place to return to. This makes sense from an ethical standpoint, as well as a pragmatic one. It is significantly more cost effective to rehabilitate prisoners instead of having them in and out of the system time and time again.

This of course, is not the reality in the United States. The United States currently incarcerates more people than any other country in the world. The incarceration rate per capita in the state of Louisiana alone is 1,341 persons per 100,000 citizens. For comparison, the country of Cuba, Rwanda, and Russia incarcerate 510, 492, and 475 persons per 100,000 citizens, respectively (Prison Policy). The American prison system is simply not structured for rehabilitation, they are structured for punishment. They provide limited resources, if at all, for underlying issues, such as substance abuse or mental health. In many cases, they can exacerbate them. This is not to say that the American prison system does not offer rehabilitation services and vocational trainings to some extent, only that the emphasis of prison is not on rehabilitation, it is on punishment. Incarceration becomes less of a one-time punishment for a crime, but rather a cycle in which prison removes one further from society, and thus makes them more inclined to act outside of society’s rules.

What is particularly striking about the Nordic model for prisons as presented by Lakey is that it recognizes the interconnected nature of issues of criminal justice and poverty. Impoverished communities statistically tend to have more crime. This is, of course, situational. Persons with limited economic resources and frustrated with the lack of social mobility turn to crime as a method of advancement. Thus, as Lakey suggests, tackling issues of poverty innately tackles issues of crime as well. Lakey goes so far in to say that the rehabilitation of prisoners is a method of poverty alleviation. By Lakey’s logic, the American prison system thus contributes to the cycle of poverty in that it continually denies prisoners the economic skills needed to leave prison and contribute to the communities that they left.

Although the adoption of a rehabilitation-focused method of prison reform based on the Scandinavian model appears to be the most effective approach to ensure justice, it is crucial to examine what this would mean in an American context. First, from a practical standpoint, it is difficult if not impossible to compare the logistical coordination needed to provide the American prison population with access to rehabilitation with the populations of Nordic countries. Simply, there are more prisoners in the United States, and thus extending the model of rehabilitation and vocational training proves to be more difficult. Moreover, there is a discussion of the fact that America has more serious crimes more frequently than the Nordic countries. The most blatant example of this is mass shootings and the lack of gun control in the U.S. Quite simply, America deals with more violent crime than the Nordic countries, and thus many argue that the punitive emphasis of prisons is crucial. Lakey, in contrast, suggests that the occurrence of violent crime in the U.S. is a cyclical consequence of a lack of rehabilitation.

Even with these considerations in mind, working to integrate more of the Nordic model of rehabilitation into the prison system instead of a top-down revamping of the criminal justice system could prove to still have tangible benefits in poverty reduction and the overall attainment of a more just system.

Prison populations are not faceless masses, but they are comprised of individual people. Thus, the ability at a grassroots level of prisoners to impact their communities is surprisingly powerful. If a prisoner receives vocational training and rehabilitation, they return to their communities ready to contribute at a higher level than they were capable of doing before. Thus, the Scandinavian model of prisons that involves in many regards a top-down approach wherein prison institutions are changed, has impacts from the bottom too, as individual people learn to leave prison and engage with their communities more deeply.

Works Cited

Lakey, George R. Viking Economics: How the Scandinavians Got It Right - and How We Can, Too. Melville House, 2017.

“Police Shootings 2017 Database.” The Washington Post, WP Company, www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings-2017/.

“States of Incarceration: The Global Context.” States of Incarceration: The Global Context | Prison Policy Initiative, www.prisonpolicy.org/global/.

[globaleconomicjustice-blog]

Pushing the Boulder Over the Hill: America’s Roadblock to Revolution

Jackie Thornhill

In his book, Viking Economics: How the Scandinavians Got it Right – and How We Can, Too, author George Lakey describes the ways in which the economies, institutions, and civil societies of Scandinavian countries differ from other wealthy, developed nations, and asserts that the United States is capable of achieving similar results. He essentially argues that by implementing a number of long overdue shifts in public policy, the US could drastically improve the quality of life for many of our citizens and the strength of our institutions. Of course, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and most other American politicians would disagree, unifying around the dismissive notion that the US is nothing like the Scandinavian countries, therefore we should not even consider the potential applicability of these policies here.

In reality, this reflexive refusal by our politicians to talk about these countries or seriously consider their ideas is a symptom of a much deeper problem. Tens of millions of Americans are uninsured and underinsured today, and our government has attempted to pass policy that would kick tens of millions more off their insurance. Over half a million Americans have died of opiate overdoses since 2000, yet the pharmaceutical companies pushing the pills continue to profit to the tune of billions while most cannot afford or lack access to addiction treatment services, and our government has done nothing to end the cycle. 93 people are shot and killed in the US every day, and our government has done nothing to regulate the firearm industry or the process for purchasing guns.

We have the single largest police state in the world, with unmatched incarceration rates. A devastating recession hollowed out our middle class, and our government bailed out the institutions that got us into the mess instead of the people who suffered because of their reckless decisions. Median wages in the US have remained stagnant in the face of steadily rising costs of living, CEO pay has grown at an unprecedented rate – over 900% since 1978, and our government has done nothing to curb the trend. In 2015, the top twenty-five hedge fund managers made more than the combined salaries of every kindergarten teacher in the country, and paid lower tax rates than most nurses, firefighters, and police officers, under a system that our government designed.

Additionally, the reality of our situation and our history seem to undermine the arguments commonly made against the feasibility of the Scandinavian model. Some say we’re too big, yet we have the 11th highest GDP per capita in the world, and highly developed infrastructure and institutions. Some say that we’re too diverse to unify around common goals, yet organizers for the United Auto Workers demonstrated over 80 years ago that when they confronted white workers with the choice between holding on to their bigotry or improving their working conditions and increasing their freedom, the workers chose freedom. Some say that these policies would represent the state infringing on their personal freedom to an unacceptable degree, yet after decades of being brainwashed to vote against their own interests, they misunderstand that these policies would make them more free by empower them to live a healthier, more educated life and earn a better income. They just need a leader who they can trust to show them a better path.

The real reason we cannot collectively act to use the resources of the wealthiest nation in the world to invest in our people is that as income inequality has increased across America, so has political spending by elite interest groups aimed at preventing reform and further looting public coffers for their own profit.

(Above: total outside spending in US elections by cycle, excluding party committees. From www.opensecrets.org) 

Or, as Lakey put it, “The reason the United States has failed to adopt universal health insurance is not because it violates our culture, but because special interests prevented the majority from getting what it was ready for. The same could be said of many Nordic-like policies, which could fit just fine into American culture but were vetoed by special interests.” The results of a study by political scientists Martin Gilen and Benjamin Page from Princeton and Northwestern, respectively, seem to confirm Lakey’s assertion. The researchers found that:

“A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues.Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.”

We call ourselves a democracy, but in reality we have allowed a handful of millionaires and billionaires to transform our government into an opaquely funded oligarchy. As human beings, we all want the same thing regardless of whether we live in Norway, Zimbabwe, the United States, or China. We all want freedom; we want to make choices that shape our lives. We want the power and control over our own destiny that comes when we have access to employment, healthcare, housing, and other basic human rights.

Though our politicians might tell us they’re not possible, we could absolutely have all of the policies Lakey identifies, which essentially amount to Bernie Sanders’ platform and those of most “progressive” Democrats - universal education, full employment, single-payer healthcare, higher taxes on the incomes of the top 1%, smart free trade policy, targeted foreign aid, effective financial regulations, flexicurity for workers, and a supportive pathway to citizenship for asylum seekers and family members. We’re being fooled if we buy the line that the money isn’t there – we would just need to spend slightly less than 50% of our entire annual discretionary budget on defense when we already outspend the next six nations combined, reallocate some funding from prisons to addiction treatment services, and repeal some of the trillions in tax cuts we grant to giant corporations, millionaires, and billionaires. Also, it’s worth pointing out that the single-payer healthcare system we already have,  Medicare, is far more cost efficient and produces far higher satisfaction for patients than most private insurance plans. 

The real problem isn’t feasibility, it’s the donors who pull the strings that control the system. The majority of the American people share a common set of values, and believe that we deserve the same quality of life as the citizens of Scandinavian countries. Regardless, until we can unify around the singular cause of getting big money out of politics by overturning the absurd legal doctrine of Citizens United that speech is money and abolish corporate personhood in the US, we cannot expect to gain an inch in any of the battles that will bring us closer to a more Scandinavian system of government.

Sources

Bump, Philip. “The 25 Top Hedge Fund Managers Earn More than All Kindergarten Teachers Combined.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 10 May 2016,

Gilens, Martin, and Benjamin I. Page. “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens.” Cambridge Core, Cambridge University Press, 18 Sept. 2014

“Gun Violence by the Numbers.” EverytownResearch.org, 22 June 2017

Lakey, George. Viking Economics: How the Scandinavians Got It Right-and How We Can, Too (Kindle Locations 2856-2857). Melville House. Kindle Edition.

“Opioid Overdose.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 30 Aug. 2017

[globaleconomicjustice-blog]

IKEA’s Approach to Climate Change

By Eliza Petrella

George Lakey in Viking Economics explains how and what makes the Nordic countries prosperous and happy. Most of his argument is based on how their economic strategy affects the wellbeing of the population, productivity, financial equality, thus creates a healthier population able to make smart choices for themselves and the future of their country. While Lakey focuses mostly on the economy, he also briefly talks about the effective climate change strategies and goals. He talks about the focus on renewable energy, especially in Denmark and in Norway where they invest in windmills and hydroelectricity (Lakey 2016, 206). In fact, he states, that they “expect to generate 50 percent of their electricity from wind by 2020 (Lakey 2016, 206). Also, Norway and Sweden aim to be carbon-neutral by 2050 (Lakey 2016, 207).

This shows that much of the government's and private companies focus in not only on the economy but also on the wellbeing of the planet which will, in the long term, impact positively their economy as well. Lakey fails, though, to dig more into this topic, as it is very important and unique to these countries. He tends to give more abstract information about Scandinavia’s effort to focus on climate change and talks more specifically about Norway rather than other Nordic countries--this is because of his expertise. Nordic countries are known for their clean air and investment in climate change, therefore they deserve more acknowledgment for their progress in this field. Sweden, actually, is mentioned only once by Lakey. In reality, Sweden plays a crucial role in a type of investment that not only involves directly Sweden or the Nordic countries but the world as a whole: IKEA. It is not a coincidence that the biggest furniture and houseware company has part of their main slogan and campaign is the concept of sustainability.

On IKEA’s website, there is an entire section dedicated to climate change, and it is not surprising. As part of Sweden’s objective described by Lakey, the country, in general, has “been paying attention to grassroots-level cuts in carbon emissions,” but IKEA specifically states on the top part of their website how they want “to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from all aspects of our operations” (Lakey 2016, 215; IKEA.com). Their main focuses, as indicated on the “about” section on IKEA.com, are renewable energy, efficient transport of products to diminish CO2 emissions, efficiency of transport of people as they keep into consideration workers and customers transportation options--they offer “free shuttle buses between the city centre and the store” and “environmentally friendly home delivery of goods purchased” (IKEA.com). Also, the focus on increasing energy efficiency to suppliers, offering a more sustainable life at home through their products (and making them cost efficient to reach more people), and it is cooperating with WWF to tackle climate change from finding better environmental friendly opportunities for raw material extraction to better recycling at the end of the use of IKEA products (IKEA.com).

IKEA’s entire commercial outlook and focus is on climate change at it is clear that it is their main priority; their entire narrative on Ads is on sustainability.

The graph (Figure 2) shows how Sweden as a whole is the most sustainable country in the world based on “investment risks and opportunities related to environmental, social and governance practices such as emissions and reliance on fossil fuels” (Korosec 2013).

It is important to keep into consideration that in 2015 IKEA invested €1bn on climate change, as an article on the Financial Times explains, and they want to set an example for other companies as well. Steve Howard, Ikea’s chief sustainability officer says “If every business and organization did what we did, we would flip electricity generation into being renewable-based by 2020 or shortly thereafter” (Clark 2015).

Chart from Environmental Leader, Sweden ‘Most Sustainable Country in the World’

Lakey’s, IKEA’s approach and confirmation for the graph, the country’s narrative on climate change is impacting all spheres of life in Sweden, from education to government investment and private company investment, in a way that is not impacting their financial performance and not impacting the environment as well. 

Clark, P. Ikea vows to spend €1bn on climate change measures. Financial Times. 2015,  https://www.ft.com/content/7d97784a-09fb-11e5-b6bd-00144feabdc0

IKEA. Climate Change. http://www.ikea.com/ms/en_JP/about_ikea/our_responsibility/climate_change/index.html

IKEA. Your home + our planet = our home. 2012, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4RbtlDit_A (video)

Lakey, G. Viking Economics. New York: Melville House. 2016.

Korosec, K. Sweden ‘Most Sustainable Country in the World’. Environmental Leader. 2013, https://www.environmentalleader.com/2013/08/sweden-most-sustainable-country-in-the-world/

[globaleconomicjustice-blog]

The [Viking] Economics of Managing Wealth & Resources

Leah Welsch

George Lakey’s, Viking Economics, argues that Nordic countries such as Norway, Sweden, Iceland, and Finland, offer an economic model that promotes more just and equal societies, and that other developed nations would do well to follow their lead. While we have deliberated on how to develop an economically just world throughout the semester, Viking Economics provides a clear illustration of what an economically just society would look like in practice. He cites programs put in place in Norway to provide a security net to individuals and their families like flexicurity, universal health care, paid extended family leave, tuition-free universities, free public transportation and pension funds. But apart from the programs that comprise Norway’s status of a model for economic justice, the book only briefly touched upon one of the most important features of Norway’s economy: how it actually manages its wealth and resources to better serve its citizens. Two central components of Norway’s economy include its state-run oil company, Statoil and its Pension Fund, Government Pension Fund Global. Norway is frequently pointed to as a model of economic success: two reasons for this being Norway’s relative political stability characterized by open democratic institutions, and a system of revenue and investment management which serves local development.

Watch: The Government Pension Fund Global

According to the Natural Resource Governance Institute, Norway ranks 1st among 89 nations in its Resource Governance Index for its sound management of the country’s resources. Norway’s main natural resource sector is oil and gas, 58% of which is exported (NRGI 2017). Norway ranks high in each of the 3 Natural Resource Governance index categories including: 1) value realization (governance around allocation, extraction rights, exploration, environmental protection, revenue collection and state-owned enterprises), 2) revenue management (national budgeting, subnational resource revenue sharing, and sovereign wealth funds), and 3) an enabling environment (the broader governance context, political stability, control of corruption, rule of law and freedom of expression). Norway’s state-owned oil company, Statoil ranks 3rd among all state-owned oil and gas companies (behind India and Argentina), exhibiting good practices in financial reporting, and transparency on government transfers, production and subsidiaries (NRGI 2017). 67% of Norway’s Statoil is owned by the Norwegian state, while the remaining 33% is owned by private investment companies including Norway’s Folketrygdfondet (which oversees Norway’s sovereign wealth fund) and U.S owned companies Blackrock and Vanguard (Norges 2017). Allowing private investment companies partial access to ownership shares of Norway’s oil company gives Norway greater power to participate in the global economic market, which means that other nations are invested in the success of Norway's industry and economy, creating a system that incentivizes global cooperation.

Another key measure of Norway’s success in resource governance is the nation's sovereign wealth fund, Government Pension Fund Global, which ranks 5th according to the Natural Resource Governance Index, demonstrating good investment governance, good practices in deposit and withdraw disclosures, and compliance with financial reporting standards (NRGI 2017). Norway’s parliament oversees the fund’s investment policy and approves any withdraws from the fund, while the central bank oversees the funds day-to-day operations (NRGI 2017). Through its sovereign wealth fund, Norway has successfully invested natural resource revenue in a way that serves its citizens by investing in diverse industries, allowing Norway to fund local development through improved standards of living by providing access to healthcare, education and economic opportunities to its citizens. Norway is a nation often considered to be a model of what a just society should look like. However, not all nations where state-owned natural resource enterprises exist lead to just societies.

One reason that Norway’s Statoil has been such a model of success is that Norway is a developed, and organized society. Norway is a politically stable nation with a strong set of structured, and (mostly) democratic institutions. Norway’s three branches of government are comprised of a monarch, a unicameral and democratically elected parliament, and a judicial branch. Statoil’s national ownership interest is managed by the nation’s Ministry of Petroleum and Energy, which is overseen by the parliament. The state is in the best position to govern resources, especially where democracy thrives. Good practices in resource governance would combine local knowledge of resources with an institution powerful enough to extract, allocate, process and invest in resources. Democratic institutions are important to just resource management, and states should form committees (of democratically elected representatives) to oversee all aspects of resource governance and revenue distribution.

Further, Norway’s national resource governance structure also includes a system of revenue management which serves its population and stimulates local development. Norway’s sovereign wealth fund, Government Pension Fund Global was established in 1996 when oil revenue was first transferred into the fund. Today, it is the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund, reaching the $1 Trillion mark in September 2017 (Nilsen 2017). The fund has invested in 9,000 companies in 77 countries, including silicon valley’s Facebook Inc (Norges 2017). Norway’s sovereign wealth fund ensures that even when the oil no longer flows in the region, the nation’s investments will continue to provide for the citizens of Norway (NBIM 2017). Using resources as a tool to develop societies that are more just, profits must be invested and distributed in a way that would best serve the nation's citizens. Norway provides a good model for using investments to develop a more just society by providing basic access to healthcare, education and pension funds to finance the future of the country.

Watch Video: https://www.nbim.no/en/investments/

Resources

Folketrygdfondet. 2017. "Folketrygdfondet: About Us." September 28.

http://www.folketrygdfondet.no/about-us/category390.html (September 28 2017).

Natural Resource Governance Index. 2017. "Natural Resource Governance Institute Index:

Country Profiles,  Norway Oil & Gas." September 28.

http://resourcegovernanceindex.org/country-profiles/NOR/oil-gas (September 28 2017).

Nilsen, Thomas. 2017. "Norway’s oil fund reaches $1 trillion." September 28,.

https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/life-and-public/2017/09/norways-oil-fund-reaches-1-trillion(September 28, 2017).

Norges Bank Investment Management. 2017. "Government Pension Fund Global: The Fund."

September 28,. https://www.nbim.no/en/the-fund/ (September 28, 2017).

[globaleconomicjustice-blog]

Was It beneficial to be Failed Colonizers?

Allise Matsuno 

The Scandinavian countries, Iceland, Greenland, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, were either never colonizers or were failed colonizers. Greenland was never a colonizer but was colonized by other Scandinavian states at different points in time. The other Scandinavian states had short lived colonies or colonies that were taken over by or bought by the French, Dutch, or British. These colonies were in Asia, the Americas, and Africa. Lakey writes that during a point of economic turmoil, “the Danes recovered by developing their societies instead of preoccupying themselves with running other peoples’ countries” (Lakey 14). He continues to write that with this introspective approach, life and infrastructure in Denmark began to flourish and new ways of tackling the issue of the availability of resources were developed. Innovation increased as well as efficiency and by the late nineteenth century, the average shipyard and factory worker gained rights that gave them significant power that they had never experienced before (Lakey 14). Along with these advancements in workers’ rights and political efficacy, there was the possibility of upward mobility. A true rags-to-riches story, “the longest-serving prime minister in Danish history” was a cigar factory worker (Lakey 14). Lakey continues to write that equality is not just an idea for the Scandinavian people but it is a cultural value. The government has programs that enables those who wish to receive a higher education degree to go to school for free, all workers to have an income and marketable skills, and for all citizens to have access to healthcare. These programs speak to the Scandinavian value put on equality. What could be perceived as a Scandinavian failure to become a global power through colonization and imperialism, set the platform for values that led these nations to be some of the most successful in the world and as Lakey argues, values that are intrinsically Scandinavian.

It is no secret that colonialism is problematic on many levels ranging from the state level to the individual level. The effects of colonialism have lasting impacts that are felt by former colonies decades after their liberation.  Colonialism did not just have problems for the colonized. It also has lasting effects on the psyche of colonizers. However, this is not to say that the systematic disinvestment and abuse of colonized people is any less unjust. Instead, that colonizers missed the opportunity to work within their region to collective solve resource and labor problems in a way that is more just and sustainable. Extractive systems devalued people and created an economic divide between colonizers and colonized as well as a new understanding of wealth. Colonialism supports the idea of accumulation by dispossession. Colonial powers depended on these colonized communities and states staying poor and profited from the economic misfortunes of others. The remnants of these beliefs can be seen in the production of goods overseas and the dependence on cheap labor. The Economists in an article titled “Made in China?” reported that though much manufacturing is being done in China, with wages rising, China is moving some of its manufacturing to even lower wage regions in South-East Asia. With the goal of making larger and larger profits, companies are dependent on this system. Scandinavian companies also have the goal of staying competitive in the global market and sometimes their factories close in search of cheaper labor. A similar process is happening in powerful countries like the United States and the United Kingdom, but what happens next is unique in Denmark, and later the rest of the Scandinavian states, is quite unique. Flexicurity.

As the Danish government calls it, Flexicurity is “a golden triangle.”  It allows for flexibility, security, and an active labor force. The first side of the triangle is that the flexicutiy gives employers the ability to let workers go during a time of downturn and easily higher workers during times of growth (“flexicurity). The next side is the program provides “unemployment security in the form of a guarantee for a legally specified unemployment benefit at a relatively high level - up to 90% for the lowest paid workers” (“flexicurity”). Lastly, an active labor market has been developed because the program helps unemployed worked get a job, receive further education, or receive guidance (“flexicurity”). In Denmark, all of these services come at the cost of only 1.5% of the country’s annual GDP. The Danish government believes that “flexicurity model rests on a century-long tradition of social dialogue and negotiation among the social partners” (“flexicurity”). Workers and employers both benefit from this system because the Danish government values the person in different way than the countries that were once imperial powers or that had imperial tendencies. This could be because the Scandinavian countries’ relatively small populations meant each citizen as a laborer was more of a precious resource. Another possibility is that it was simply out of the goodness of the governments’ heart and speaks to the power of the people to collective act. What is more likely is that because of their small populations these states realized the importance of investing in people to having educated, happy, and consequently more productive work force.

           Lastly, not having access to the resources of other countries until more recently, these states had to think pf regional and more sustainable solutions. For example, farmer co-ops allowed small dairy farmers to have access to modern techniques that they would not otherwise have (Erikson 14). Today, this kind of thinking manifests itself in the investment in renewable energy. Sweden in 2015 set the goal to go 100% fossil-fuel free and that same year Demark produced 42% of its energy using renewable methods.

           While other states were becoming empires and or industrializing, the Nordic states were doing neither of these things on a large scale or at all. Though in the short term this hindered their growth, it created the opportunity for these states and their people to solve problems in what would traditionally be considered unorthodox. This kind of problem solving resulted in progressive policy that makes this region considered to be one of the most developed and happy regions on the globe.

Sources:

“Flexicurity” http://denmark.dk/en

https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21646204-asias-dominance-manufacturing-will-endure-will-make-development-harder-others-made

The Scandinavian Model: Welfare States and Welfare Research by Robert Erikson

[globaleconomicjustice-blog]

The Real Defenders of What is Left of Earth

Ameyalli Rocha Coronel

In This Changes Everything by Naomi Klein she discusses the difference between the positions of environmental groups and indigenous groups when it has come to issues on climate change. In chapter 2 when discussing the issues revolving the signing of NAFTA, she discusses how the in the beginning of the negotiations many environmental groups were against the agreement, but later on switched to supporting it. These groups became known as the Big Green groups. These groups seemed to be fight for environmental issues, but then also get wrapped up in capitalism and free trade agreements. In chapter 11, she brings in the argument from the indigenous groups, which are most affected by free trade agreements and environmental matters. These Big Green groups use indigenous groups as an argument, but never actually listen to their opinions or demands, they just use them to shine a better light on their groups.

The issue is that while indigenous groups are those who are mostly affected by environmental issues, they are the groups that are ignored the most when it comes to those being heard and pay severe consequences when they challenge those committing acts that are destructive to the environment. On June 20, 2016, Global Witness published a report, which stated horrifying evidence of environmental defenders being killed at an alarming rate. The report stated that the year of 2015 was the deadliest year for those striving to protect their land, water and forests. Their report concluded that more than three people were murdered a week that year and they documented a total of 185 killings across sixteen countries. The countries that suffered the most from this kind of violence were Brazil, the Philippines and Colombia. The report also said that “conflicts over mining were the number one cause of killings in 2015, with agribusiness, hydroelectric dams and logging also key drivers of violence. In 2015, almost 40% of victims were from indigenous groups.” There is reason to believe that the death toll is even higher, but since most of these conflicts occur in hidden territory, it is difficult to document every death.

The report also stated that most of the time states and corporate interests protect many of those who are responsible for the murders of these defenders. Global Witness turned to their well documented cases and found out that “16 killings were related to paramilitary groups, 13 to the army, 11 to the police and 11 to private security – strongly implying state or company links to the killings.” In addition, there was little evidence that showed that states did anything to investigate the crimes or to hold the murders accountable. Global Witness calls for states to increase protection, investigate crimes, support activists’ right to say no and to resolve the underlying causes of violence against defenders.

The Guardian has been closely following the reports by Global Witness, and they have stated that in 2016 more than two hundred activists were killed and up to four were killed per week. This is double than it was five years ago. So far in 2017, 184 have been murdered and 98 of those deaths were in the first five months of the year. Moreover, The Guardian also reports that an EU-funded atlas of environment academics have found that there are currently two thousand environmental conflicts in the world and the number is growing. Most of the conflicts occur in Latin America, the most dangerous region to be an environmental defender.  The region is responsible for 60 of murders and this could be connected back to Latin America’s major economic interests at stake.  

Every time an environmental defender is killed, the murder is used as a weapon to silence those who are also fighting to protect the environment. Since most of these conflicts are going on in developing countries, there is more corruption and weak law enforcement. Companies look to poor countries for access to land, resources and labor; therefore, it is easy for companies and governments to join forces and kill people, especially activists and indigenous people not willing to comply with giving up their way of life.

https://www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/environmental-activists/dangerous-ground/

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/13/environmental-defenders-being-killed-in-record-numbers-globally-new-research-reveals

[globaleconomicjustice-blog]

Dadaab Camp

Dadaab is the worlds largest refugee camp and its located-on Kenya border with Somalia, the camp was established in 1992 to home for almost 90,000 refugees from the civil war there. It has grown into a city for almost half a million. In Dadaab the informal collective power overwhelms institutional designs and because of that a regional black-market economy thrive in the absence of jobs. Moreover, when the international aid shifted their attention to Syria, terrorism seizes in Kenya, more pressure mounts to close the camp. The camp provided by the United Nations and nongovernmental agenices were free, and Dadaab had little of everything food, water, schools, medical supplies. Also, corrupt policemen and criminals ensured an atmosphere of constant fear. When the author visited Dadaab, al Shabaab offensives had already driven up nearly half of Somalia six to eight million people to leave their homes. Rawlence puts it, so inured to the roulette of war, it had simply become the landscape of life. Who determined to leave had struggled a lot across the parached desert and through the scrubby bush.

Dadaab, the world’s biggest refugee camp, located in eastern Kenya, is said to be home to half a million people

In a country without a government, the Isalmic Courts Union (ICU) rose to power, led by Al-Shabaab, a conservative faction. In 2007, the United States, concerned by the rise of Al-Shbaab, supported an Ethopian invasion of the city and Guled watched as it burned. When ICU was defeated, Al-Shbaab regained power and settled into the role of governing Mogadishu, ruling the city with fear. A climate of fear is imposed by the rule of radical faction, and an economy run by a variety of corrupt actors. But, in 2011, as the factors of mass starvation, war, suicide bombings and assassinations that infect the rest of the region.

In fact, there are now over 6,000 grandchildren of the original 1991 refugees who were born in Dadaab. These children have never seen Somalia, like their parents. It is inconceivable to think that things could get any worse, but they have. Conflict and invasion have driven an extra 154,000 people to Dadaab within the last 12 months. Also, a security crackdown by the Kenyan authorities and sustained attacks by Al-Shabab. I believe this situation must be monitored closely, otherwise the tragedy of the past 20 years in Dadaab could end with a bigger tragedy of the forced deportation of hundreds of thousands of Somali refugees.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFOwtOTUesM 

Sultan Babatin

[globaleconomicjustice-blog]

The Scandinavian Model and the Rise of the Far Right

Kyle Choate

In George Lakey’s book, Viking Economics, he outlines a successful model for achieving economic justice in all countries. In my explainer, I will focus on two aspects of the Nordic model and one of the downsides that have emerged in recent years. Lakey’s main argument is that the Nordic model has been successful in creating a better and more just society and, therefore, should be extrapolated to the United States.

Lakey begins by describing how the success of Scandinavian countries came about. He then details various aspects of the Scandinavian model, from education to taxes to dealing with the environment. The strengths of the book are that he makes a good case about the success of the model and provides detailed evidence which I will discuss. However, he glosses over the recent rise of the rightwing in Nordic countries which I will also discuss.

One of the strengths of Lakey’s book is his depiction of the struggles of Scandinavian countries on the way to reaching their goal of economic justice for all citizens. He discusses how Sweden and Norway decided to switch to a neoliberal model in the 1980s modeled on Reaganite and Thatcherite polices of free-market capitalism with little regulation and how disastrous this was.

One of the areas Lakey focuses on to explore the success of the Scandinavian model are issues of women’s rights. Lakey describes the high rates of female participation in parliaments across the Scandinavian region to illustrate the progress made by these countries on issues of gender equality. He also discusses in detail the parental leave policies offered by Scandinavian businesses, which greatly benefit women who work by allowing them time off to take care of their children with no loss of benefits. He discusses how fathers are required to also take time off, thereby equalizing the genders. Empirical evidence shows that these polices have been successful. According to The Economist’s glass-ceiling index, the four Scandinavian countries ranked highest as of 2016 on the environment for working women.

Another area Lakey focuses on is the health care system. Lakey effectively makes the case about the superiority of the Nordic health care system. He effectively dispels myths about the supposed efficiency of the US health care system. He explains, “It turns out that there’s far more bureaucracy and paperwork in the US market-based health-care system, with multiple insurance companies and their multiple plans covering different things, with multiple employees acting as gatekeepers” (136).

However, Lakey does not spend much time talking about the recent rise of the rightwing in the region or the reasons why they have been able to achieve success. In recent years, due to the refugee crisis, there has been an increase in support for right-wing parties throughout the Nordic region. For example, in 2013,  the rightwing Progress Party in Norway won the election, making Erna Solsberg prime minister. This was followed by an increase in representation for rightwing parties in Denmark, Sweden, and Finland. Voters have been turning to these parties because they have been worried about losing the welfare state benefits due to the massive amount of migration from war-torn regions of the world. Many of these parties achieve success and a broad coalition of voters by combining rightwing polices on immigration and race with leftwing economic polices to gain support across many groups who would not ordinarily support rightwing parties. For example, Julian Coman in The Guardian writes about how the rightwing Social Democrats in Denmark gained support by running on policies that included extending unemployment benefits to four years from two years. These parties base their ideas on what has been called “welfare chauvinism," which is the belief that the people who live in the country should receive the benefits of the welfare system, not immigrants. According to Mette Wiggen, “Xenophobia, racism and welfare chauvinism have gone mainstream in Scandinavia.”

Lakey successfully describes a good model for achieving economic justice. By talking in detail about specific policy areas, he provides a significant amount of evidence and examples for his claims. However, his unwillingness to fully realize the significance of the rightwing is a problem and deficiency of his book.

[globaleconomicjustice-blog]

Indigenous Peoples and Climate Change

In This Changes Everything, Klein emphasizes that major and impactful climate change prevention must come from government intervention and a restructuring of the political system. Her main argument, that climate change gives us the opportunity to bring about transformations in many other social justice areas, lies upon the concept that these transformations are necessary for the counteracting of an impending state of environmental destruction.

One solution presented in Chapter 11 is the utilisation of laws surrounding native lands in order to conserve resources and prevent destruction of the environment. Klein depicts some of these legalities and ways in which they have solved or prevented small-scale environmental damage. She explains how aboriginal and treaty rights have been historically debated and in many ways neglected yet governments and the United Nations have made more recent attempts to revisit these rights and establish some protection of the lands indigenous peoples have ownership of.

“Huge advances are being made in recognizing the legitimacy of these claims...the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples...2007...states that, ’Indigenous peoples have the right to the conservation and protection of the environment and productive capacity of their lands or territories and resources.’...they have ‘the right to redress’ for the lands that ‘have been confiscated, taken, occupied, used or damaged without their free, prior and informed consent.’”. (377)

In searching for a way to understand the global influence of the indigenous population, I discovered this website, landmarkmap.org. The site is a data platform that catalogues stats and data from different nations and shows relevant information such as the percentage of land per country that is legally recognizes as belonging to indigenous peoples. The United States, for example, contains 5% indigenous lands while China contains almost 50%.

The platform also gives different levels of legal security in these areas as shown below.

The battle between conservation of indigenous lands and big company abuse of resources is a difficult one. Many alternative factors put the native legal case at a disadvantage. (money, influence, attitudes toward natives)

“For instance in the landmark “Rainforest Chernobyl” case in which Ecuador’s highest court ordered Chevron to pay $9.5 billion in damages, a company spokesman famously said: ‘We’re going to fight this until hell freezes over–and then we’ll fight it out on the ice.’(And indeed, the fight still drags on.)”(378)

A recent article in the North American Congress on Latin America explains some of the lasting effects of the Rainforest Chernobyl case as well as the two decade-long struggle to obtain compensation for the Chevron-Texaco damages to the rainforest. “About 80 times larger than BP’s Deepwater Horizon spill, the “Amazon Chernobyl” was not the result of equipment failure or company negligence. According to a 2013 ruling by Ecuador’s Supreme Court, Chevron-Texaco — which drilled for oil in the country from the 1970s to the early 1990s — intentionally dumped billions of gallons of difficult-to-refine crude and toxic formation waters into open, unlined pits and directly into rivers and streams surrounding its operations. To this day, this waste disposal cost-prevention measure continues to release harmful substances, such as benzene and mercury, into the Amazon.” (Ofrias)

Additionally, there are moral issues with using native peoples rights as a tool to prevent climate change. What might be the negative outcomes or cons of utilising native rights for the movement against climate change? ---page 387 says it may be just another extractive relationship, taking advantage of native peoples for the good of non-native peoples, what will we give them in return?

I believe this could be an opportunity for native peoples to harness their influence for a greater good, by taking on a larger role in the climate change discussion and being recognized as an authority on the subject. After the most recent UN Climate Change Conference, just last week, indigenous participation will be permitted in future climate discussions. A recent article on Native American attitudes toward environmental initiatives states that “the Native American environmental activists were also disappointed in the small role indigenous peoples were allowed to play in the climate conference. They see the campaign to halt climate change as linked to the human rights of indigenous peoples around the world”. (Mundahl)

Sources:

Ofrias, Fighting Chevron in Ecuador, <https://nacla.org/news/2017/11/03/fighting-chevron-ecuador>

Mundahl, Native American Environmental Activists Say Paris Agreement Doesn’t Go Far Enough, <http://www.insidesources.com/native-american-environmental-activists-say-paris-agreement-doesnt-go-far-enough/>

Landmark: Global Platform of Indigenous and Community Lands, Percent of Country Held by Indigenous People and Communities, <http://www.landmarkmap.org/map/#x=-117.93&y=10.62&l=1&a=percentLands>

[globaleconomicjustice-blog]

“Doomsday Discourse” Dangers: The Devaluation of the Power of Local Communities Against Climate Change

By: Cassie Murphy

Source: NASA.gov “Average Springtime Temperature Increase 1950s-2090s”

In Naomi Klein’s book, “This Changes Everything”, she discusses the impending reality of the consequences of climate change. As she writes bluntly in the introduction to the book, “it’s too late to stop climate change from coming; it is already here, and increasingly brutal disasters are headed our way no matter what we do” (Klein 28). The discourse surrounding climate change is rightfully apocalyptic, as scientific study after scientific study finds that our collective doom is coming whether it be by over-pollution, overpopulation, or the extinction of the bees. 

This type of doomsday-style discourse that Klein employs for much of the book is impactful in many ways, especially in that it reinforces the notion that climate change is a global phenomenon that needs to be addressed in a structural way. However, this type of discourse can also devalue the importance of local communities in the fight against climate change. 

For Klein, structural changes to the international economy are imperative to mitigating the effects of climate change. Certainly, structural agreements like cap and trade programs would not exist without international cooperation, catalyzed on by the doomsday-style discourse. These types of structural agreements provide a formalized approach to climate change. Attaching a market price to otherwise free externalities like carbon encourages the adoption of alternative forms of energy, thus decreasing the incentive to pollute. Although programs like cap and trade are certainly not perfectly just solutions, as they address a painfully immediate problem with incremental change, they are certainly a start. In this case, the use of this type of doomsday discourse proved to be particularly effective in encouraging international cooperation based on the notion of the imperative nature of the problem.

Source: “Carbon Pricing Explained with Chickens” - Youtube

This is not to say, however, the doomsday-style discourse is strictly effective, as it does in many cases contribute to an oversaturation. The classic instance of this is of course, the polar bear, staring forlornly at the photographer as the ice below his feet slowly melts away. This image has been repeated time and time again, so much so that one becomes desensitized to its magnitude. A similar phenomenon occurs on a larger scale with this doomsday discourse in that it becomes a problem considered too big for any one person or government to solve. The danger in this of course is that this discourse, although on an international level can encourage action to overcome collective action problems, on a smaller, more local scale it can be debilitating and lead to inaction.

Source: NPR.com, “What Happens to Polar Bears as Ice Shrinks?”

This discussion of oversaturation is particularly important in that it devalues the abilities of local communities to react to climate change’s effects. The doomsday discourse has notably distant undertones, focusing on the decisions of political and economic elite. Discussions and decisions, although they have national and local level consequences are discussed as solely within the context of supranational organizations. The impacts of climate change on smaller communities not as case studies, but rather as mere anecdotes, meant to pack a powerful punch of pathos but not much else. This encourages the idea that local communities have no say in climate change policy, but are left to bear the brunt of the consequences.

In this regard, the doomsday-discourse and its focus on climate change being a global problem falls short. Local communities, although they do not have the power to change the structure of the global economy do of course, have significant power to act in other ways. In fact, local communities and governments, especially in the countries that are the biggest polluters, are some of the best chances to combat the consequences of climate change. 

As the Guardian writes in an article entitled, “Climate Change is a Global Problem, Local Action is a Solution”, “without assistance from national governments, municipal environmental groups have set up their own local peer-to-peer networks … Supporting the expansion of such projects from one community to another could be the key for rapid and inclusive action, and this grassroots domino effect could make it less likely that climate action is an elitist and expensive imposition”. More than just inclusivity, decentralized local climate change action is tailored to the cultural and economic needs of the region in a way that national or international action cannot. However, none of this happens when the focus is on the apocalypse-style story of climate change.

Although certainly climate change is by nature a damningly immediate crisis that will impact the entire globe, a doomsday-style rhetorical discourse comes up short in terms of inspiring action. Certainly it can encourage more international structural changes at the top, but also can oversaturate the conversation and devalue the ability of local communities to act against climate change. Thus, the discourse on climate change needs to forcefully advocate the immediacy of the issue, while still encouraging local action.

Sources:

“Climate Change Evidence: How Do We Know?” NASA, NASA, 10 Aug. 2017, climate.nasa.gov/evidence/.

Klein, Naomi. This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate. Penguin Books, 2015.

Reddy, Bhavya. “Climate Change Is a Global Problem. Climate Action Is a Local Solution.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 5 Oct. 2015, www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/05/climate-change-global-problem-climate-action-local-solution.

“What Happens To Polar Bears As Arctic Ice Shrinks? (As Heard on All Things Considered).” NPR, NPR, 16 Jan. 2010, www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122650964.

[globaleconomicjustice-blog]

This Changes Everything

Tess Judge

Early in Klein’s book, This Changes Everything, she talks about a conference held for climate deniers, where they talk about how climate change is not real, and just a made-up thing to get people to change their lifestyles. Klein quotes Larry Bell saying that climate change “’has little to do with the state of the environment and much to do with the shackling capitalism and transforming the American way of life in the interests of global wealth redistribution’” (Klein 33).

The issue of climate denial comes down to capitalism. As she talks about in her book, the main reason to deny climate change is so that companies don’t have to change their ways and adapt to new regulations. Klein even says that, “many deniers are quite open about the fact that their distrust of the science grew out of a powerful fear that if climate change is real, the political implications would be catastrophic” (Klein 42).

I decided to look at who are the biggest climate denier, and where do they get most of their funding from. Some of the biggest climate deniers I found, Klein also discusses in her book. The first one that she talks about is Marc Morano. She explains that he is the editor of Climate Depot, which is a news-site specifically for climate deniers. But he is also the communications director for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which is an anti-science think tank which receives funding from Exxon and Chevron.

She also talks about Chris Horner saying he “specializes in harassing climate scientists with burdensome lawsuits and Freedom of Information Act fishing expeditions” (Klein 32). I also found, according to beforetheflood.com, “Horner has personally received funding from the coal company Alpha Natural Resources for legal counsel, as well as fossil fuel funding to his organization.”

Both of these avid climate-deniers receive funding from big oil companies, who would benefit the most from no action being taken to prevent climate change.

Pat Michaels is another big climate denier, who regularly comments on climate change issues on Fox News and Forbes. He has also written several books which are critical of climate change science and the risks of rising greenhouse gas emissions. He has estimated that about 40% of his funding comes from the oil industry.

According to Greenpeace, “most modern lobbyists do not deny the irrefutable science indicating that our planet is warming, but instead deny the need for viable solutions — such as a cost on industrial carbon pollution, energy efficiency, clean energy alternatives to fossil fuels — as demonstrated by the science.” The climate deniers all know that climate change is real, and happing now, but because they are getting paid by big fossil fuel companies, they try to create doubt about climate change.

According to Greenpeace, “The Koch brothers continue to finance campaigns to make Americans doubt the seriousness of global warming, increasingly hiding money through nonprofits like DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund.” The fossil fuel companies try and hide that they are paying people to say that climate change isn’t real, so they give money through different companies, but they are still funding the whole thing.

Sources:

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/climate-deniers/koch-industries/

http://www.ashergrey.info/uploads/1/4/8/3/14835916/secret_funding_helped_build_vast_network_of_climate_denial_think_tanks___grist.pdf

https://www.beforetheflood.com/explore/the-deniers/top-10-climate-deniers/

[globaleconomicjustice-blog]

The Effects of Fracking on Climate Change

By: Valeria Ballesteros

In today’s world while we are at war fighting for freedom and safety, we forget that our main priority should be saving our cities from sinking, our world’s temperature from increasing, basically we should be focusing on how to stop this self-destruction from continuing. Because eventually we will no longer have a world to fight for in a battle ground. All we do are small changes: limiting our driving, staying away from corporations instead of changing the system causing this crisis. We don’t want our routines to change. We don’t want to alter our way of life. Why make life harder on us? Right? Well, by ignoring the reality of the matter we are ignoring the world’s needs.

Naomi Klein’s book, This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs The Climate, introduces many possible effects of climate change and some of which are already happening. She focuses, as the title can reassure you, on capitalism. What I found intriguing during the first few pages of the book, before reading on, is something I had not thought about before. To me, climate change had negative connotations all over. In reading this book I realized that there can be possible outcomes to this crisis humanity has gotten itself in. Only that these positive outcomes will only be possible if we act towards saving our world. Klein argues that the future of climate change is not, just surviving or enduring it beyond mitigation and adaptation, but one of creating a better world from what we are now. By using the crisis collectively (Klein, 7). She lists these positive changes in her introduction by stating, “I began to see all kinds of ways that climate change could become a catalyzing force for positive change—how it could be the best argument progressives have every had to demand the rebuilding and reviving of local economies; to reclaim our democracies from corrosive corporate influence; to block harmful new free trade deals and rewrite old ones; to invest in starving public infrastructure like mass transit and affordable housing; to take back ownership of essential services like energy and water; to remake our sick agricultural system into something much healthier; to open borders to migrants whose displacement is linked to climate impacts; to finally respect Indigenous land rights—all of which would help to end grotesque levels of inequality within our nations and between them” (Klein, 7).

These plans sound phenomenal. With crisis coming closer everyday, these possibilities sound more and more realistic. It could possibly lead to a more peaceful and just world. But the reality we are living has a much more gruesome angle due to our ignorance and selfishness. Although these are remarkable ideas we should be aiming towards, I will be focusing on the negative aspects of climate change, how it’s becoming more severe and the impacts of it due to fracking. Due to the exhaustion of conventional gas sources, fracking has become more popular. Fracking is a whole process, as we saw earlier this semester in a video presented, fracking is the extraction of natural gases by injecting sand, chemicals, and water. The process is composed of eight million liter of water and 200,000 liters of chemicals. The fracking fluid is responsible for contaminating water and the soil. Leading to both the contamination of animals and humans. It is a risk (Kurzgesagt, 2013). According to Qingmin Meng, the author of “The impacts of fracking on the environment: A total environmental study paradigm”, states, “…fracking does not only influence ground water but most environmental elements including but not limited to air, water, soil, rock, vegetation, wildlife, human, and many other ecosystem components.” Fracking is responsible for contaminating our biosphere, through the input and output of water, air, liquid, and solid waste disposals (Meng, 2017). Fracking sites are typically located in forests which then leads to deforestation due to fracking. This has tremendous effects on the environment such as: a loss of habitats for animals, plant species, drives climate change (locally/regionally). 

Otto, H. (2013). Earth Work Sanction.

http://www.napavalley.edu/Library/Pages/HSI-STEM-2015-Summer-Institute---Fracking-Resources.aspx

The soil becomes dry and causes a disruption in the region which leads to changes in extreme temperatures that harm microorganisms, plants, animals, humans. Apart from these facts, Meng states, “As a result of huge amounts of methane emissions into atmosphere, fracking significantly changes the effect of current greenhouse gases,…it has changed land surface temperatures and local and regional climates” (Meng, 2017). This is a direct threat to the anthroposphere. It also affects the lithosphere in, weathering and soil, landform, erosion and deposition, seismicity and earthquakes, and climate change. By extracting natural gases from the Earth’s soil, we are exposing more natural gases than that which the world is capable of holding. They can not be regulated by our plants which capture the gases while releasing oxygen. In doing this, the over exposure of natural gases end up in our stratosphere. It is the layer of the atmosphere that contains the ozone layer. It is the protective layer which protects Earth from space and UV-radiation. This excess of natural gas in the stratosphere weakens the ozone layer which in consequence the ozone layer allows more space and UV-radiation to enter earth, causing global warming. 

One of Klein’s concern for global warming is that the heat will, “cause staple crops to suffer dramatic yield losses across the globe (It is possible that Indian wheat and U.S. corn could plummet by as much as 60 percent), this at a time when demand will be surging due to population growth and a growing demand for meat” (Klein 14). The concern for global warming is evident. It affects each and everyone of us, even the rich. There is no way out of it unless we change our luxurious costumes we have become so dependent on, and fracking is not helping the fight against global warming.

Meng, Q. (2017). The impacts of fracking on the environment: A total          environmental study paradigm. Science Of The Total Environment, 580953-957. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.12.045http://0-www.sciencedirect.com.ignacio.usfca.edu/science/article/pii/S0048969716327322

Klein, N. (2014). This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs Climate. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks.

Kurzgesagt,. (2013). Fracking explained: opportunity or danger. Retrieved from 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uti2niW2BRA

Otto, H. (2013). Earth Work Sanction.

http://www.napavalley.edu/Library/Pages/HSI-STEM-2015-Summer-Institute---Fracking-Resources.aspx

[globaleconomicjustice-blog]

Hammam Alaflah

                                       This Changes Everything

In this book “This Changes Everything”, Klein discusses how climate change should be fought strategically in a way that is irresistible and that will help us overcome the issue of changing climate.  Klein’s plan to fight climate change begins by creating mass a movement that will support finding solutions and building coalitions to fight all what stands in the way of climate change action. She urges also for the alliances between activists from divergent movements to create what would be the recognized mass movement able to force action to prevent global warming from continuing on the same rapid pace. To start the process of solving this issue, people have to be united from different groups and different movements and be galvanized into one massive movement that will force effective action in the case of climate change. She also discusses how the system itself reproduces more obstacles for climate change action advocates that indirectly urge capitalists and corporations to take advantage of nature and extract each and everything that has a value selfishly without being bothered to take advice from scientists and researchers. In Klein’s argument, galvanizing different groups of people and social justice movements based on their common interests to fight and be an overwhelming force on elites, selfish corporations and lawmakers to have the organizations and laws that represent the people who believe in social justice and that a clean and safe environment is a right to every individual. The mass movement in Klein’s plan would also be in charge of fighting the “ideological blocks” to the next economy that will be just to nature and will serve the interests of all humanity. Part of her argument is that people from the right are sort of blinded with the belief of the invisible hand, neoliberalism, free market and that the human being is selfish and greedy, which results in inaction and belief that the system will fix itself and somehow solve the problems facing humanity. Her plan is a big change in the political and economic system that will help us overcome the issue of climate change and be “embedded in interdependence rather than hyperindividualism, reciprocity rather than dominance, and cooperation rather than hierarchy.” In this economic change, she illustrates how more people will not only be represented but be alleviated from poverty when availability of clean water and electricity is facilitated and become more accessible to those impoverished. Inequality can be reduced according to Klein, when lawmakers implement policies where there will be “benefits, including strengthened safety nets and reduced inequality: "a just, equitable, and inspiring transition".

Furthermore, Klein explains how free market fundamentalism contributes to heating the globe, in which countries blame free trade for climate change due to other countries having more emissions than others and corporations favoring other countries and going offshore for more profit in a deregulated economy where climate change is not so much of an issue when compared with their benefits of deregulation.” However, by building the movement, having masses of people demanding action, and “slapping the invisible hand,” governments will be forced democratically to put change into those industries where gas emissions should be reduced and global warming should be fought. For instance, to build a coalition of different movements that all aspire to correct the system and fight injustices will be a strong force that will also build an understanding between those groups about their specific movements causes and fighting climate change will be the common cause for all members of the “mass movement” of all the various movements. Such movements should be formed here in the united states where the progress towards combating climate change has been slow and fought over back and forth by political party members. Although some actions have been taken such as the Paris climate agreement by the Obama administration, now it has been reversed, which is one of the reasons why the united states has not been able to make progress in taking action to combat global warming.

 Klein, Naomi, 1970- author. This Changes Everything : Capitalism vs. the Climate. New York :Simon & Schuster, 2014. Print.