Category Archives: Resource Based Economy

An economy (From Greek "household" and o "manage") is an area of the production, distribution, or trade, and consumption of goods and services by different agents in a given geographical location. Understood in its broadest sense, 'The economic is defined as a social domain that emphasizes the practices, discourses, and material expressions associated with the production, use and management of resources'.[1] Economic agents can be individuals, businesses, organizations, or governments. Economic transactions occur when two parties agree to the value or price of the transacted good or service, commonly expressed in a certain currency, but monetary transactions are only a small part of the economic domain.

Economic activity is spurred by production which uses natural resources, labor, and capital. It has changed over time due to technology (automation, accelerator of process, reduction of cost functions), innovation (new products, services, processes, new markets, expands markets, diversification of markets, niche markets, increases revenue functions) such as that which produces intellectual property and changes in industrial relations (for example, child labor being replaced in some parts of the world with universal access to education).

A given economy is the result of a set of processes that involves its culture, values, education, technological evolution, history, social organization, political structure and legal systems, as well as its geography, natural resource endowment, and ecology, as main factors. These factors give context, content, and set the conditions and parameters in which an economy functions. In other words, the economic domain is a social domain of human practices and transactions. It does not stand alone.

A market-based economy is where goods and services are produced and exchanged according to demand and supply between participants (economic agents) by barter or a medium of exchange with a credit or debit value accepted within the network, such as a unit of currency.

A command-based economy is where political agents directly control what is produced and how it is sold and distributed.

A green economy is low-carbon, resource efficient, and socially inclusive. In a green economy, growth in income and employment are driven by public and private investments that reduce carbon emissions and pollution, enhance energy and resource efficiency, and prevent the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services.[2]

Today the range of fields of study examining the economy revolve around the social science of economics, but may include sociology (economic sociology), history (economic history), anthropology (economic anthropology), and geography (economic geography). Practical fields directly related to the human activities involving production, distribution, exchange, and consumption of goods and services as a whole, are engineering, management, business administration, applied science, and finance.

All professions, occupations, economic agents or economic activities, contribute to the economy. Consumption, saving, and investment are variable components in the economy that determine macroeconomic equilibrium. There are three main sectors of economic activity: primary, secondary, and tertiary.

Due to the growing importance of the financial sector in modern times,[3] the term real economy is used by analysts[4][5] as well as politicians[6] to denote the part of the economy that is concerned with the actual production of goods and services,[7] as ostensibly contrasted with the paper economy, or the financial side of the economy,[8] which is concerned with buying and selling on the financial markets. Alternate and long-standing terminology distinguishes measures of an economy expressed in real values (adjusted for inflation), such as real GDP, or in nominal values (unadjusted for inflation).[9]

The English words "economy" and "economics" can be traced back to the Greek word (i.e. "household management"), a composite word derived from ("house;household;home") and ("manage; distribute;to deal out;dispense") by way of ("household management").

The first recorded sense of the word "economy" is in the phrase "the management of conomic affairs", found in a work possibly composed in a monastery in 1440. "Economy" is later recorded in more general senses, including "thrift" and "administration".

The most frequently used current sense, denoting "the economic system of a country or an area", seems not to have developed until the 19th or 20th century.[10]

As long as someone has been making, supplying and distributing goods or services, there has been some sort of economy; economies grew larger as societies grew and became more complex. Sumer developed a large-scale economy based on commodity money, while the Babylonians and their neighboring city states later developed the earliest system of economics as we think of, in terms of rules/laws on debt, legal contracts and law codes relating to business practices, and private property.[11]

The Babylonians and their city state neighbors developed forms of economics comparable to currently used civil society (law) concepts.[12] They developed the first known codified legal and administrative systems, complete with courts, jails, and government records.

The ancient economy was mainly based on subsistence farming. The Shekel referred to an ancient unit of weight and currency. The first usage of the term came from Mesopotamia circa 3000 BC., and referred to a specific mass of barley which related other values in a metric such as silver, bronze, copper etc. A barley/shekel was originally both a unit of currency and a unit of weight, just as the British Pound was originally a unit denominating a one-pound mass of silver.

For most people the exchange of goods occurred through social relationships. There were also traders who bartered in the marketplaces. In Ancient Greece, where the present English word 'economy' originated, many people were bond slaves of the freeholders. Economic discussion was driven by scarcity.

In Medieval times, what we now call economy was not far from the subsistence level. Most exchange occurred within social groups. On top of this, the great conquerors raised venture capital (from ventura, ital.; risk) to finance their captures. The capital should be refunded by the goods they would bring up in the New World. Merchants such as Jakob Fugger (14591525) and Giovanni di Bicci de' Medici (13601428) founded the first banks.[citation needed] The discoveries of Marco Polo (12541324), Christopher Columbus (14511506) and Vasco da Gama (14691524) led to a first global economy. The first enterprises were trading establishments. In 1513, the first stock exchange was founded in Antwerpen. Economy at the time meant primarily trade.

The European captures became branches of the European states, the so-called colonies. The rising nation-states Spain, Portugal, France, Great Britain and the Netherlands tried to control the trade through custom duties and ]] (from mercator, lat.: merchant) was a first approach to intermediate between private wealth and public interest. The secularization in Europe allowed states to use the immense property of the church for the development of towns. The influence of the nobles decreased. The first Secretaries of State for economy started their work. Bankers like Amschel Mayer Rothschild (17731855) started to finance national projects such as wars and infrastructure. Economy from then on meant national economy as a topic for the economic activities of the citizens of a state.

The first economist in the true modern meaning of the word was the Scotsman Adam Smith (17231790) who was inspired partly by the ideas of physiocracy, a reaction to mercantilism and also later Economics student, Adam Mari.[13] He defined the elements of a national economy: products are offered at a natural price generated by the use of competition - supply and demand - and the division of labor. He maintained that the basic motive for free trade is human self-interest. The so-called self-interest hypothesis became the anthropological basis for economics. Thomas Malthus (17661834) transferred the idea of supply and demand to the problem of overpopulation.

The Industrial Revolution was a period from the 18th to the 19th century where major changes in agriculture, manufacturing, mining, and transport had a profound effect on the socioeconomic and cultural conditions starting in the United Kingdom, then subsequently spreading throughout Europe, North America, and eventually the world. The onset of the Industrial Revolution marked a major turning point in human history; almost every aspect of daily life was eventually influenced in some way. In Europe wild capitalism started to replace the system of mercantilism (today: protectionism) and led to economic growth. The period today is called industrial revolution because the system of Production, production and division of labor enabled the mass production of goods.

After the chaos of two World Wars and the devastating Great Depression, policymakers searched for new ways of controlling the course of the economy. This was explored and discussed by Friedrich August von Hayek (18991992) and Milton Friedman (19122006) who pleaded for a global free trade and are supposed to be the fathers of the so-called neoliberalism. However, the prevailing view was that held by John Maynard Keynes (18831946), who argued for a stronger control of the markets by the state. The theory that the state can alleviate economic problems and instigate economic growth through state manipulation of aggregate demand is called Keynesianism in his honor. In the late 1950s, the economic growth in America and Europeoften called Wirtschaftswunder (ger: economic miracle) brought up a new form of economy: mass consumption economy. In 1958, John Kenneth Galbraith (19082006) was the first to speak of an affluent society. In most of the countries the economic system is called a social market economy.

With the fall of the Iron Curtain and the transition of the countries of the Eastern Block towards democratic government and market economies, the idea of the post-industrial society is brought into importance as its role is to mark together the significance that the service sector receives at the place of the industrialization, as well the first usage of this term, some relate it to Daniel Bell's 1973 book, The Coming of Post-Industrial Society, while other - to social philosopher Ivan Illich's book, Tools for Conviviality. The term is also applied in philosophy to designate the fading of postmodernism in the late 90s and especially in the beginning of the 21st century. But, the term came to common usage to describe the growth of economies like the Chinese at the period (the term is specifically used by Bill Clinton in a speech about Republic of China in 1998).

With the spread of Internet as a mass media and communication medium especially after 2000-2001, the idea for the Internet and information economy is given place because of the growing importance of ecommerce and electronic businesses, also the term for a global information society as understanding of a new type of "all-connected" society is created. In the late 00s, the new type of economies and economic expansions of countries like China, Brazil, and India bring attention and interest to different from the usually dominating Western type economies and economic models.

The economy may be considered as having developed through the following Phases or Degrees of Precedence.

In modern economies, these phase precedences are somewhat differently expressed by the three-sector theory.[citation needed]

Other sectors of the developed community include:

There are a number of ways to measure economic activity of a nation. These methods of measuring economic activity include:

The GDP - Gross domestic product of a country is a measure of the size of its economy. The most conventional economic analysis of a country relies heavily on economic indicators like the GDP and GDP per capita. While often useful, it should be noted that GDP only includes economic activity for which money is exchanged.

An informal economy is economic activity that is neither taxed nor monitored by a government, contrasted with a formal economy. The informal economy is thus not included in that government's Gross National Product (GNP). Although the informal economy is often associated with developing countries, all economic systems contain an informal economy in some proportion.

Informal economic activity is a dynamic process which includes many aspects of economic and social theory including exchange, regulation, and enforcement. By its nature, it is necessarily difficult to observe, study, define, and measure. No single source readily or authoritatively defines informal economy as a unit of study.

The terms "under the table" and "off the books" typically refer to this type of economy. The term black market refers to a specific subset of the informal economy. The term "informal sector" was used in many earlier studies, and has been mostly replaced in more recent studies which use the newer term.

Read more from the original source:

Economy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In ecology, sustainability (from sustain and ability) is the property of biological systems to remain diverse and productive indefinitely. Long-lived and healthy wetlands and forests are examples of sustainable biological systems. In more general terms, sustainability is the endurance of systems and processes. The organizing principle for sustainability is sustainable development, which includes the four interconnected domains: ecology, economics, politics and culture.[1]Sustainability science is the study of sustainable development and environmental science.[2]

Sustainability can also be defined as a socio-ecological process characterized by the pursuit of a common ideal.[3] An ideal is by definition unattainable in a given time/space but endlessly approachable and it is this endless pursuit what builds in sustainability in the process (ibid). Healthy ecosystems and environments are necessary to the survival of humans and other organisms. Ways of reducing negative human impact are environmentally-friendly chemical engineering, environmental resources management and environmental protection. Information is gained from green chemistry, earth science, environmental science and conservation biology. Ecological economics studies the fields of academic research that aim to address human economies and natural ecosystems.

Moving towards sustainability is also a social challenge that entails international and national law, urban planning and transport, local and individual lifestyles and ethical consumerism. Ways of living more sustainably can take many forms from reorganizing living conditions (e.g., ecovillages, eco-municipalities and sustainable cities), reappraising economic sectors (permaculture, green building, sustainable agriculture), or work practices (sustainable architecture), using science to develop new technologies (green technologies, renewable energy and sustainable fission and fusion power), or designing systems in a flexible and reversible manner,[4][5] and adjusting individual lifestyles that conserve natural resources.[6]

Despite the increased popularity of the use of the term "sustainability", the possibility that human societies will achieve environmental sustainability has been, and continues to be, questionedin light of environmental degradation, climate change, overconsumption, population growth and societies' pursuit of indefinite economic growth in a closed system.[7][8]

The name sustainability is derived from the Latin sustinere (tenere, to hold; sub, up). Sustain can mean maintain", "support", or "endure.[9][10] Since the 1980s sustainability has been used more in the sense of human sustainability on planet Earth and this has resulted in the most widely quoted definition of sustainability as a part of the concept sustainable development, that of the Brundtland Commission of the United Nations on March 20, 1987: sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.[11][12]

The 2005 World Summit on Social Development identified sustainable development goals, such as economic development, social development and environmental protection.[15] This view has been expressed as an illustration using three overlapping ellipses indicating that the three pillars of sustainability are not mutually exclusive and can be mutually reinforcing.[16] In fact, the three pillars are interdependent, and in the long run none can exist without the others.[17] The three pillars have served as a common ground for numerous sustainability standards and certification systems in recent years, in particular in the food industry.[18][19] Standards which today explicitly refer to the triple bottom line include Rainforest Alliance, Fairtrade and UTZ Certified.[20][21] Some sustainability experts and practitioners have illustrated four pillars of sustainability, or a quadruple bottom line. One such pillar is future generations, which emphasizes the long-term thinking associated with sustainability.[22]

Sustainable development consists of balancing local and global efforts to meet basic human needs without destroying or degrading the natural environment.[23][24][25] The question then becomes how to represent the relationship between those needs and the environment.

A study from 2005 pointed out that environmental justice is as important as is sustainable development.[26] Ecological economist Herman Daly asked, "what use is a sawmill without a forest?"[27] From this perspective, the economy is a subsystem of human society, which is itself a subsystem of the biosphere, and a gain in one sector is a loss from another.[28] This perspective led to the nested circles figure of 'economics' inside 'society' inside the 'environment'.

The simple definition that sustainability is something that improves "the quality of human life while living within the carrying capacity of supporting eco-systems",[29] though vague, conveys the idea of sustainability having quantifiable limits. But sustainability is also a call to action, a task in progress or journey and therefore a political process, so some definitions set out common goals and values.[30] The Earth Charter[31] speaks of a sustainable global society founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace. This suggested a more complex figure of sustainability, which included the importance of the domain of 'politics'.

More than that, sustainability implies responsible and proactive decision-making and innovation that minimizes negative impact and maintains balance between ecological resilience, economic prosperity, political justice and cultural vibrancy to ensure a desirable planet for all species now and in the future.[32] Specific types of sustainability include, sustainable agriculture, sustainable architecture or ecological economics.[33] Understanding sustainable development is important but without clear targets an unfocused term like "liberty" or "justice".[34] It has also been described as a "dialogue of values that challenge the sociology of development".[35]

While the United Nations Millennium Declaration identified principles and treaties on sustainable development, including economic development, social development and environmental protection it continued using three domains: economics, environment and social sustainability. More recently, using a systematic domain model that responds to the debates over the last decade, the Circles of Sustainability approach distinguished four domains of economic, ecological, political and cultural sustainability. This in accord with the United Nations Agenda 21, which specifies culture as the fourth domain of sustainable development.[37] The model is now being used by organizations such as the United Nations Cities Programme.[38] and Metropolis[39]

Integral elements of sustainability are research and innovation activities. A telling example is the European environmental research and innovation policy. It aims at defining and implementing a transformative agenda to greening the economy and the society as a whole so to make them sustainable. Research and innovation in Europe are financially supported by the programme Horizon 2020, which is also open to participation worldwide.[40]

Resiliency in ecology is the capacity of an ecosystem to absorb disturbance and still retain its basic structure and viability. Resilience-thinking evolved from the need to manage interactions between human-constructed systems and natural ecosystems in a sustainable way despite the fact that to policymakers a definition remains elusive. Resilience-thinking addresses how much planetary ecological systems can withstand assault from human disturbances and still deliver the services current and future generations need from them. It is also concerned with commitment from geopolitical policymakers to promote and manage essential planetary ecological resources in order to promote resilience and achieve sustainability of these essential resources for benefit of future generations of life?[41] The resiliency of an ecosystem, and thereby, its sustainability, can be reasonably measured at junctures or events where the combination of naturally occurring regenerative forces (solar energy, water, soil, atmosphere, vegetation, and biomass) interact with the energy released into the ecosystem from disturbances.[42]

A practical view of sustainability is closed systems that maintain processes of productivity indefinitely by replacing resources used by actions of people with resources of equal or greater value by those same people without degrading or endangering natural biotic systems.[43] In this way, sustainability can be concretely measured in human projects if there is a transparent accounting of the resources put back into the ecosystem to replace those displaced. In nature, the accounting occurs naturally through a process of adaptation as an ecosystem returns to viability from an external disturbance. The adaptation is a multi-stage process that begins with the disturbance event (earthquake, volcanic eruption, hurricane, tornado, flood, or thunderstorm), followed by absorption, utilization, or deflection of the energy or energies that the external forces created.[44]

In analysing systems such as urban and national parks, dams, farms and gardens, theme parks, open-pit mines, water catchments, one way to look at the relationship between sustainability and resiliency is to view the former with a long-term vision and resiliency as the capacity of human engineers to respond to immediate environmental events.[45]

The history of sustainability traces human-dominated ecological systems from the earliest civilizations to the present time.[46] This history is characterized by the increased regional success of a particular society, followed by crises that were either resolved, producing sustainability, or not, leading to decline.[47][48]

In early human history, the use of fire and desire for specific foods may have altered the natural composition of plant and animal communities.[49] Between 8,000 and 10,000 years ago, agrarian communities emerged which depended largely on their environment and the creation of a "structure of permanence."[50]

The Western industrial revolution of the 18th to 19th centuries tapped into the vast growth potential of the energy in fossil fuels. Coal was used to power ever more efficient engines and later to generate electricity. Modern sanitation systems and advances in medicine protected large populations from disease.[51] In the mid-20th century, a gathering environmental movement pointed out that there were environmental costs associated with the many material benefits that were now being enjoyed. In the late 20th century, environmental problems became global in scale.[52][53][54][55] The 1973 and 1979 energy crises demonstrated the extent to which the global community had become dependent on non-renewable energy resources.

In the 21st century, there is increasing global awareness of the threat posed by the human greenhouse effect, produced largely by forest clearing and the burning of fossil fuels.[56][57]

The philosophical and analytic framework of sustainability draws on and connects with many different disciplines and fields; in recent years an area that has come to be called sustainability science has emerged.[58]

The United Nations Millennium Declaration identified principles and treaties on sustainable development, including economic development, social development and environmental protection. The Circles of Sustainability approach distinguishes the four domains of economic, ecological, political and cultural sustainability. This in accord with the United Nations Agenda 21, which specifies culture as the fourth domain of sustainable development.[37]

Sustainability is studied and managed over many scales (levels or frames of reference) of time and space and in many contexts of environmental, social and economic organization. The focus ranges from the total carrying capacity (sustainability) of planet Earth to the sustainability of economic sectors, ecosystems, countries, municipalities, neighbourhoods, home gardens, individual lives, individual goods and services[clarification needed], occupations, lifestyles, behaviour patterns and so on. In short, it can entail the full compass of biological and human activity or any part of it.[59] As Daniel Botkin, author and environmentalist, has stated: "We see a landscape that is always in flux, changing over many scales of time and space."[60]

The sheer size and complexity of the planetary ecosystem has proved problematic for the design of practical measures to reach global sustainability. To shed light on the big picture, explorer and sustainability campaigner Jason Lewis has drawn parallels to other, more tangible closed systems. For example, he likens human existence on Earth isolated as the planet is in space, whereby people cannot be evacuated to relieve population pressure and resources cannot be imported to prevent accelerated depletion of resources to life at sea on a small boat isolated by water.[61] In both cases, he argues, exercising the precautionary principle is a key factor in survival.[62]

A major driver of human impact on Earth systems is the destruction of biophysical resources, and especially, the Earth's ecosystems. The environmental impact of a community or of humankind as a whole depends both on population and impact per person, which in turn depends in complex ways on what resources are being used, whether or not those resources are renewable, and the scale of the human activity relative to the carrying capacity of the ecosystems involved. Careful resource management can be applied at many scales, from economic sectors like agriculture, manufacturing and industry, to work organizations, the consumption patterns of households and individuals and to the resource demands of individual goods and services.[63][64]

One of the initial attempts to express human impact mathematically was developed in the 1970s and is called the I PAT formula. This formulation attempts to explain human consumption in terms of three components: population numbers, levels of consumption (which it terms "affluence", although the usage is different), and impact per unit of resource use (which is termed "technology", because this impact depends on the technology used). The equation is expressed:

Sustainability measurement is a term that denotes the measurements used as the quantitative basis for the informed management of sustainability.[66] The metrics used for the measurement of sustainability (involving the sustainability of environmental, social and economic domains, both individually and in various combinations) are evolving: they include indicators, benchmarks, audits, sustainability standards and certification systems like Fairtrade and Organic, indexes and accounting, as well as assessment, appraisal[67] and other reporting systems. They are applied over a wide range of spatial and temporal scales.[68][69]

Some of the best known and most widely used sustainability measures include corporate sustainability reporting, Triple Bottom Line accounting, World Sustainability Society, Circles of Sustainability, and estimates of the quality of sustainability governance for individual countries using the Environmental Sustainability Index and Environmental Performance Index.

According to the 2008 Revision of the official United Nations population estimates and projections, the world population is projected to reach 7 billion early in 2012, up from the current 6.9 billion (May 2009), to exceed 9 billion people by 2050. Most of the increase will be in developing countries whose population is projected to rise from 5.6 billion in 2009 to 7.9 billion in 2050. This increase will be distributed among the population aged 1559 (1.2 billion) and 60 or over (1.1 billion) because the number of children under age 15 in developing countries is predicted to decrease. In contrast, the population of the more developed regions is expected to undergo only slight increase from 1.23 billion to 1.28 billion, and this would have declined to 1.15 billion but for a projected net migration from developing to developed countries, which is expected to average 2.4 million persons annually from 2009 to 2050.[70] Long-term estimates in 2004 of global population suggest a peak at around 2070 of nine to ten billion people, and then a slow decrease to 8.4 billion by 2100.[71]

Emerging economies like those of China and India aspire to the living standards of the Western world as does the non-industrialized world in general.[72] It is the combination of population increase in the developing world and unsustainable consumption levels in the developed world that poses a stark challenge to sustainability.[73]

At the global scale, scientific data now indicates that humans are living beyond the carrying capacity of planet Earth and that this cannot continue indefinitely. This scientific evidence comes from many sources but is presented in detail in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and the planetary boundaries framework.[74] An early detailed examination of global limits was published in the 1972 book Limits to Growth, which has prompted follow-up commentary and analysis.[75] A 2012 review in Nature by 22 international researchers expressed concerns that the Earth may be "approaching a state shift" in its biosphere.[76]

The Ecological footprint measures human consumption in terms of the biologically productive land needed to provide the resources, and absorb the wastes of the average global citizen. In 2008 it required 2.7 global hectares per person, 30% more than the natural biological capacity of 2.1 global hectares (assuming no provision for other organisms).[53] The resulting ecological deficit must be met from unsustainable extra sources and these are obtained in three ways: embedded in the goods and services of world trade; taken from the past (e.g. fossil fuels); or borrowed from the future as unsustainable resource usage (e.g. by over exploiting forests and fisheries).

The figure (right) examines sustainability at the scale of individual countries by contrasting their Ecological Footprint with their UN Human Development Index (a measure of standard of living). The graph shows what is necessary for countries to maintain an acceptable standard of living for their citizens while, at the same time, maintaining sustainable resource use. The general trend is for higher standards of living to become less sustainable. As always, population growth has a marked influence on levels of consumption and the efficiency of resource use.[65][77] The sustainability goal is to raise the global standard of living without increasing the use of resources beyond globally sustainable levels; that is, to not exceed "one planet" consumption. Information generated by reports at the national, regional and city scales confirm the global trend towards societies that are becoming less sustainable over time.[78][79]

Romanian American economist Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, a progenitor in economics and a paradigm founder of ecological economics, has argued that the carrying capacity of Earth that is, Earth's capacity to sustain human populations and consumption levels is bound to decrease sometime in the future as Earth's finite stock of mineral resources is presently being extracted and put to use.[80]:303 Leading ecological economist and steady-state theorist Herman Daly, a student of Georgescu-Roegen, has propounded the same argument.[81]:369371

At a fundamental level energy flow and biogeochemical cycling set an upper limit on the number and mass of organisms in any ecosystem.[82] Human impacts on the Earth are demonstrated in a general way through detrimental changes in the global biogeochemical cycles of chemicals that are critical to life, most notably those of water, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus.[83]

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment is an international synthesis by over 1000 of the world's leading biological scientists that analyzes the state of the Earths ecosystems and provides summaries and guidelines for decision-makers. It concludes that human activity is having a significant and escalating impact on the biodiversity of world ecosystems, reducing both their resilience and biocapacity. The report refers to natural systems as humanity's "life-support system", providing essential "ecosystem services". The assessment measures 24 ecosystem services concluding that only four have shown improvement over the last 50 years, 15 are in serious decline, and five are in a precarious condition.[84]

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are the current harmonized set of seventeen future international development targets.

The Official Agenda for Sustainable Development adopted on 25 September 2015 has 92 paragraphs, with the main paragraph (51) outlining the 17 Sustainable Development Goals and its associated 169 targets. This included the following seventeen goals:[85]

As of August 2015, there were 169 proposed targets for these goals and 304 proposed indicators to show compliance.[103]

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) replace the eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which expired at the end of 2015. The MDGs were established in 2000 following the Millennium Summit of the United Nations. Adopted by the 189 United Nations member states at the time and more than twenty international organizations, these goals were advanced to help achieve the following sustainable development standards by 2015.

According to the data that member countries represented to the United Nations, Cuba was the only nation in the world in 2006 that met the World Wide Fund for Nature's definition of sustainable development, with an ecological footprint of less than 1.8 hectares per capita, 1.5, and a Human Development Index of over 0.8, 0.855.[104][105]

Healthy ecosystems provide vital goods and services to humans and other organisms. There are two major ways of reducing negative human impact and enhancing ecosystem services and the first of these is environmental management. This direct approach is based largely on information gained from earth science, environmental science and conservation biology. However, this is management at the end of a long series of indirect causal factors that are initiated by human consumption, so a second approach is through demand management of human resource use.

Management of human consumption of resources is an indirect approach based largely on information gained from economics. Herman Daly has suggested three broad criteria for ecological sustainability: renewable resources should provide a sustainable yield (the rate of harvest should not exceed the rate of regeneration); for non-renewable resources there should be equivalent development of renewable substitutes; waste generation should not exceed the assimilative capacity of the environment.[106]

At the global scale and in the broadest sense environmental management involves the oceans, freshwater systems, land and atmosphere, but following the sustainability principle of scale it can be equally applied to any ecosystem from a tropical rainforest to a home garden.[107][108]

At a March 2009 meeting of the Copenhagen Climate Council, 2,500 climate experts from 80 countries issued a keynote statement that there is now "no excuse" for failing to act on global warming and that without strong carbon reduction "abrupt or irreversible" shifts in climate may occur that "will be very difficult for contemporary societies to cope with".[109][110] Management of the global atmosphere now involves assessment of all aspects of the carbon cycle to identify opportunities to address human-induced climate change and this has become a major focus of scientific research because of the potential catastrophic effects on biodiversity and human communities (see Energy below).

Other human impacts on the atmosphere include the air pollution in cities, the pollutants including toxic chemicals like nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, volatile organic compounds and airborne particulate matter that produce photochemical smog and acid rain, and the chlorofluorocarbons that degrade the ozone layer. Anthropogenic particulates such as sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere reduce the direct irradiance and reflectance (albedo) of the Earth's surface. Known as global dimming, the decrease is estimated to have been about 4% between 1960 and 1990 although the trend has subsequently reversed. Global dimming may have disturbed the global water cycle by reducing evaporation and rainfall in some areas. It also creates a cooling effect and this may have partially masked the effect of greenhouse gases on global warming.[111]

Water covers 71% of the Earth's surface. Of this, 97.5% is the salty water of the oceans and only 2.5% freshwater, most of which is locked up in the Antarctic ice sheet. The remaining freshwater is found in glaciers, lakes, rivers, wetlands, the soil, aquifers and atmosphere. Due to the water cycle, fresh water supply is continually replenished by precipitation, however there is still a limited amount necessitating management of this resource. Awareness of the global importance of preserving water for ecosystem services has only recently emerged as, during the 20th century, more than half the worlds wetlands have been lost along with their valuable environmental services. Increasing urbanization pollutes clean water supplies and much of the world still does not have access to clean, safe water.[112] Greater emphasis is now being placed on the improved management of blue (harvestable) and green (soil water available for plant use) water, and this applies at all scales of water management.[113]

Ocean circulation patterns have a strong influence on climate and weather and, in turn, the food supply of both humans and other organisms. Scientists have warned of the possibility, under the influence of climate change, of a sudden alteration in circulation patterns of ocean currents that could drastically alter the climate in some regions of the globe.[114] Ten per cent of the world's population about 600 million people live in low-lying areas vulnerable to sea level rise.

Loss of biodiversity stems largely from the habitat loss and fragmentation produced by the human appropriation of land for development, forestry and agriculture as natural capital is progressively converted to man-made capital. Land use change is fundamental to the operations of the biosphere because alterations in the relative proportions of land dedicated to urbanisation, agriculture, forest, woodland, grassland and pasture have a marked effect on the global water, carbon and nitrogen biogeochemical cycles and this can impact negatively on both natural and human systems.[115] At the local human scale, major sustainability benefits accrue from sustainable parks and gardens and green cities.[116][117]

Since the Neolithic Revolution about 47% of the worlds forests have been lost to human use. Present-day forests occupy about a quarter of the worlds ice-free land with about half of these occurring in the tropics.[118] In temperate and boreal regions forest area is gradually increasing (with the exception of Siberia), but deforestation in the tropics is of major concern.[119]

Food is essential to life. Feeding more than seven billion human bodies takes a heavy toll on the Earths resources. This begins with the appropriation of about 38% of the Earths land surface[120] and about 20% of its net primary productivity.[121] Added to this are the resource-hungry activities of industrial agribusiness everything from the crop need for irrigation water, synthetic fertilizers and pesticides to the resource costs of food packaging, transport (now a major part of global trade) and retail. Environmental problems associated with industrial agriculture and agribusiness are now being addressed through such movements as sustainable agriculture, organic farming and more sustainable business practices.[122]

The underlying driver of direct human impacts on the environment is human consumption.[123] This impact is reduced by not only consuming less but by also making the full cycle of production, use and disposal more sustainable. Consumption of goods and services can be analysed and managed at all scales through the chain of consumption, starting with the effects of individual lifestyle choices and spending patterns, through to the resource demands of specific goods and services, the impacts of economic sectors, through national economies to the global economy.[124] Analysis of consumption patterns relates resource use to the environmental, social and economic impacts at the scale or context under investigation. The ideas of embodied resource use (the total resources needed to produce a product or service), resource intensity, and resource productivity are important tools for understanding the impacts of consumption. Key resource categories relating to human needs are food, energy, materials and water.

In 2010, the International Resource Panel, hosted by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), published the first global scientific assessment on the impacts of consumption and production[125] and identified priority actions for developed and developing countries. The study found that the most critical impacts are related to ecosystem health, human health and resource depletion. From a production perspective, it found that fossil-fuel combustion processes, agriculture and fisheries have the most important impacts. Meanwhile, from a final consumption perspective, it found that household consumption related to mobility, shelter, food and energy-using products cause the majority of life-cycle impacts of consumption.

The Sun's energy, stored by plants (primary producers) during photosynthesis, passes through the food chain to other organisms to ultimately power all living processes. Since the industrial revolution the concentrated energy of the Sun stored in fossilized plants as fossil fuels has been a major driver of technology which, in turn, has been the source of both economic and political power. In 2007 climate scientists of the IPCC concluded that there was at least a 90% probability that atmospheric increase in CO2 was human-induced, mostly as a result of fossil fuel emissions but, to a lesser extent from changes in land use. Stabilizing the worlds climate will require high-income countries to reduce their emissions by 6090% over 2006 levels by 2050 which should hold CO2 levels at 450650ppm from current levels of about 380ppm. Above this level, temperatures could rise by more than 2C to produce catastrophic climate change.[126][127] Reduction of current CO2 levels must be achieved against a background of global population increase and developing countries aspiring to energy-intensive high consumption Western lifestyles.[128]

Reducing greenhouse emissions, is being tackled at all scales, ranging from tracking the passage of carbon through the carbon cycle[129] to the commercialization of renewable energy, developing less carbon-hungry technology and transport systems and attempts by individuals to lead carbon neutral lifestyles by monitoring the fossil fuel use embodied in all the goods and services they use.[130]Engineering of emerging technologies such as carbon-neutral fuel[131][132][133] and energy storage systems such as power to gas, compressed air energy storage,[134][135] and pumped-storage hydroelectricity[136][137][138] are necessary to store power from transient renewable energy sources including emerging renewables such as airborne wind turbines.[139]

Water security and food security are inextricably linked. In the decade 195160 human water withdrawals were four times greater than the previous decade. This rapid increase resulted from scientific and technological developments impacting through the economy especially the increase in irrigated land, growth in industrial and power sectors, and intensive dam construction on all continents. This altered the water cycle of rivers and lakes, affected their water quality and had a significant impact on the global water cycle.[140] Currently towards 35% of human water use is unsustainable, drawing on diminishing aquifers and reducing the flows of major rivers: this percentage is likely to increase if climate change impacts become more severe, populations increase, aquifers become progressively depleted and supplies become polluted and unsanitary.[141] From 1961 to 2001 water demand doubled agricultural use increased by 75%, industrial use by more than 200%, and domestic use more than 400%.[142] In the 1990s it was estimated that humans were using 4050% of the globally available freshwater in the approximate proportion of 70% for agriculture, 22% for industry, and 8% for domestic purposes with total use progressively increasing.[140]

Water efficiency is being improved on a global scale by increased demand management, improved infrastructure, improved water productivity of agriculture, minimising the water intensity (embodied water) of goods and services, addressing shortages in the non-industrialized world, concentrating food production in areas of high productivity, and planning for climate change, such as through flexible system design. A promising direction towards sustainable development is to design systems that are flexible and reversible.[4][5] At the local level, people are becoming more self-sufficient by harvesting rainwater and reducing use of mains water.[113][143]

The American Public Health Association (APHA) defines a "sustainable food system"[144][145] as "one that provides healthy food to meet current food needs while maintaining healthy ecosystems that can also provide food for generations to come with minimal negative impact to the environment. A sustainable food system also encourages local production and distribution infrastructures and makes nutritious food available, accessible, and affordable to all. Further, it is humane and just, protecting farmers and other workers, consumers, and communities."[146] Concerns about the environmental impacts of agribusiness and the stark contrast between the obesity problems of the Western world and the poverty and food insecurity of the developing world have generated a strong movement towards healthy, sustainable eating as a major component of overall ethical consumerism.[147] The environmental effects of different dietary patterns depend on many factors, including the proportion of animal and plant foods consumed and the method of food production.[148][149][150][151] The World Health Organization has published a Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health report which was endorsed by the May 2004 World Health Assembly. It recommends the Mediterranean diet which is associated with health and longevity and is low in meat, rich in fruits and vegetables, low in added sugar and limited salt, and low in saturated fatty acids; the traditional source of fat in the Mediterranean is olive oil, rich in monounsaturated fat. The healthy rice-based Japanese diet is also high in carbohydrates and low in fat. Both diets are low in meat and saturated fats and high in legumes and other vegetables; they are associated with a low incidence of ailments and low environmental impact.[152]

At the global level the environmental impact of agribusiness is being addressed through sustainable agriculture and organic farming. At the local level there are various movements working towards local food production, more productive use of urban wastelands and domestic gardens including permaculture, urban horticulture, local food, slow food, sustainable gardening, and organic gardening.[153][154]

Sustainable seafood is seafood from either fished or farmed sources that can maintain or increase production in the future without jeopardizing the ecosystems from which it was acquired. The sustainable seafood movement has gained momentum as more people become aware about both overfishing and environmentally destructive fishing methods.

As global population and affluence has increased, so has the use of various materials increased in volume, diversity and distance transported. Included here are raw materials, minerals, synthetic chemicals (including hazardous substances), manufactured products, food, living organisms and waste.[155] By 2050, humanity could consume an estimated 140 billion tons of minerals, ores, fossil fuels and biomass per year (three times its current amount) unless the economic growth rate is decoupled from the rate of natural resource consumption. Developed countries' citizens consume an average of 16 tons of those four key resources per capita, ranging up to 40 or more tons per person in some developed countries with resource consumption levels far beyond what is likely sustainable.[156]

Sustainable use of materials has targeted the idea of dematerialization, converting the linear path of materials (extraction, use, disposal in landfill) to a circular material flow that reuses materials as much as possible, much like the cycling and reuse of waste in nature.[157] This approach is supported by product stewardship and the increasing use of material flow analysis at all levels, especially individual countries and the global economy.[158] The use of sustainable biomaterials that come from renewable sources and that can be recycled is preferred to the use on non-renewables from a life cycle standpoint.

Synthetic chemical production has escalated following the stimulus it received during the second World War. Chemical production includes everything from herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers to domestic chemicals and hazardous substances.[159] Apart from the build-up of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere, chemicals of particular concern include: heavy metals, nuclear waste, chlorofluorocarbons, persistent organic pollutants and all harmful chemicals capable of bioaccumulation. Although most synthetic chemicals are harmless there needs to be rigorous testing of new chemicals, in all countries, for adverse environmental and health effects. International legislation has been established to deal with the global distribution and management of dangerous goods.[160][161] The effects of some chemical agents needed long-term measurements and a lot of legal battles to realize their danger to human health. The classification of the toxic carcinogenic agents is handle by the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

Every economic activity produces material that can be classified as waste. To reduce waste, industry, business and government are now mimicking nature by turning the waste produced by industrial metabolism into resource. Dematerialization is being encouraged through the ideas of industrial ecology, ecodesign[162] and ecolabelling. In addition to the well-established reduce, reuse and recycle, shoppers are using their purchasing power for ethical consumerism.[64]

The European Union is expected to table by the end of 2015 an ambitious Circular Economy package which is expected to include concrete legislative proposals on waste management, ecodesign and limits on land fills.

On one account, sustainability "concerns the specification of a set of actions to be taken by present persons that will not diminish the prospects of future persons to enjoy levels of consumption, wealth, utility, or welfare comparable to those enjoyed by present persons."[163] Sustainability interfaces with economics through the social and ecological consequences of economic activity.[27] Sustainability economics represents: "...a broad interpretation of ecological economics where environmental and ecological variables and issues are basic but part of a multidimensional perspective. Social, cultural, health-related and monetary/financial aspects have to be integrated into the analysis."[164] However, the concept of sustainability is much broader than the concepts of sustained yield of welfare, resources, or profit margins.[165] At present, the average per capita consumption of people in the developing world is sustainable but population numbers are increasing and individuals are aspiring to high-consumption Western lifestyles. The developed world population is only increasing slightly but consumption levels are unsustainable. The challenge for sustainability is to curb and manage Western consumption while raising the standard of living of the developing world without increasing its resource use and environmental impact. This must be done by using strategies and technology that break the link between, on the one hand, economic growth and on the other, environmental damage and resource depletion.[166]

A recent UNEP report proposes a green economy defined as one that improves human well-being and social equity, while significantly reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities: it "does not favor one political perspective over another but works to minimize excessive depletion of natural capital". The report makes three key findings: that greening not only generates increases in wealth, in particular a gain in ecological commons or natural capital, but also (over a period of six years) produces a higher rate of GDP growth; that there is an inextricable link between poverty eradication and better maintenance and conservation of the ecological commons, arising from the benefit flows from natural capital that are received directly by the poor; "in the transition to a green economy, new jobs are created, which in time exceed the losses in brown economy jobs. However, there is a period of job losses in transition, which requires investment in re-skilling and re-educating the workforce.[167]

Several key areas have been targeted for economic analysis and reform: the environmental effects of unconstrained economic growth; the consequences of nature being treated as an economic externality; and the possibility of an economics that takes greater account of the social and environmental consequences of market behavior.[168]

Historically there has been a close correlation between economic growth and environmental degradation: as communities grow, so the environment declines. This trend is clearly demonstrated on graphs of human population numbers, economic growth, and environmental indicators.[169] Unsustainable economic growth has been starkly compared to the malignant growth of a cancer[170] because it eats away at the Earth's ecosystem services which are its life-support system. There is concern that, unless resource use is checked, modern global civilization will follow the path of ancient civilizations that collapsed through overexploitation of their resource base.[171][172] While conventional economics is concerned largely with economic growth and the efficient allocation of resources, ecological economics has the explicit goal of sustainable scale (rather than continual growth), fair distribution and efficient allocation, in that order.[173][174] The World Business Council for Sustainable Development states that "business cannot succeed in societies that fail".[175]

In economic and environmental fields, the term decoupling is becoming increasingly used in the context of economic production and environmental quality. When used in this way, it refers to the ability of an economy to grow without incurring corresponding increases in environmental pressure. Ecological economics includes the study of societal metabolism, the throughput of resources that enter and exit the economic system in relation to environmental quality.[174][176] An economy that is able to sustain GDP growth without having a negative impact on the environment is said to be decoupled. Exactly how, if, or to what extent this can be achieved is a subject of much debate. In 2011 the International Resource Panel, hosted by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), warned that by 2050 the human race could be devouring 140 billion tons of minerals, ores, fossil fuels and biomass per year three times its current rate of consumption unless nations can make serious attempts at decoupling.[177] The report noted that citizens of developed countries consume an average of 16 tons of those four key resources per capita per annum (ranging up to 40 or more tons per person in some developed countries). By comparison, the average person in India today consumes four tons per year. Sustainability studies analyse ways to reduce resource intensity (the amount of resource (e.g. water, energy, or materials) needed for the production, consumption and disposal of a unit of good or service) whether this be achieved from improved economic management, product design, or new technology.[178]

There are conflicting views whether improvements in technological efficiency and innovation will enable a complete decoupling of economic growth from environmental degradation. On the one hand, it has been claimed repeatedly by efficiency experts that resource use intensity (i.e., energy and materials use per unit GDP) could in principle be reduced by at least four or five-fold, thereby allowing for continued economic growth without increasing resource depletion and associated pollution.[179][180] On the other hand, an extensive historical analysis of technological efficiency improvements has conclusively shown that improvements in the efficiency of the use of energy and materials were almost always outpaced by economic growth, in large part because of the rebound effect (conservation) or Jevons Paradox resulting in a net increase in resource use and associated pollution.[181][182] Furthermore, there are inherent thermodynamic (i.e., second law of thermodynamics) and practical limits to all efficiency improvements. For example, there are certain minimum unavoidable material requirements for growing food, and there are limits to making automobiles, houses, furniture, and other products lighter and thinner without the risk of losing their necessary functions.[183] Since it is both theoretically and practically impossible to increase resource use efficiencies indefinitely, it is equally impossible to have continued and infinite economic growth without a concomitant increase in resource depletion and environmental pollution, i.e., economic growth and resource depletion can be decoupled to some degree over the short run but not the long run. Consequently, long-term sustainability requires the transition to a steady state economy in which total GDP remains more or less constant, as has been advocated for decades by Herman Daly and others in the ecological economics community.

A different proposed solution to partially decouple economic growth from environmental degradation is the restore approach.[184] This approach views "restore" as a fourth component to the common reduce, reuse, recycle motto. Participants in such efforts are encouraged to voluntarily donate towards nature conservation a small fraction of the financial savings they experience through a more frugal use of resources. These financial savings would normally lead to rebound effects, but a theoretical analysis suggests that donating even a small fraction of the experienced savings can potentially more than eliminate rebound effects.[184]

The economic importance of nature is indicated by the use of the expression ecosystem services to highlight the market relevance of an increasingly scarce natural world that can no longer be regarded as both unlimited and free.[185] In general, as a commodity or service becomes more scarce the price increases and this acts as a restraint that encourages frugality, technical innovation and alternative products. However, this only applies when the product or service falls within the market system.[186] As ecosystem services are generally treated as economic externalities they are unpriced and therefore overused and degraded, a situation sometimes referred to as the Tragedy of the Commons.[185]

One approach to this dilemma has been the attempt to "internalize" these "externalities" by using market strategies like ecotaxes and incentives, tradeable permits for carbon, and the encouragement of payment for ecosystem services. Community currencies associated with Local Exchange Trading Systems (LETS), a gift economy and Time Banking have also been promoted as a way of supporting local economies and the environment.[187][188]Green economics is another market-based attempt to address issues of equity and the environment.[189] The global recession and a range of associated government policies are likely to bring the biggest annual fall in the world's carbon dioxide emissions in 40 years.[190]

Treating the environment as an externality may generate short-term profit at the expense of sustainability.[191]Sustainable business practices, on the other hand, integrate ecological concerns with social and economic ones (i.e., the triple bottom line).[192][193] Growth that depletes ecosystem services is sometimes termed "uneconomic growth" as it leads to a decline in quality of life.[194][195] Minimizing such growth can provide opportunities for local businesses. For example, industrial waste can be treated as an "economic resource in the wrong place". The benefits of waste reduction include savings from disposal costs, fewer environmental penalties, and reduced liability insurance. This may lead to increased market share due to an improved public image.[196][197] Energy efficiency can also increase profits by reducing costs.

The idea of sustainability as a business opportunity has led to the formation of organizations such as the Sustainability Consortium of the Society for Organizational Learning, the Sustainable Business Institute, and the World Council for Sustainable Development.[198] The expansion of sustainable business opportunities can contribute to job creation through the introduction of green-collar workers.[199] Research focusing on progressive corporate leaders who have integrated sustainability into commercial strategy has yielded a leadership competency model for sustainability,[200][201] and led to emergence of the concept of "embedded sustainability" defined by its authors Chris Laszlo and Nadya Zhexembayeva as "incorporation of environmental, health, and social value into the core business with no trade-off in price or quality in other words, with no social or green premium."[202] Laszlo and Zhexembayeva's research showed that embedded sustainability offers at least seven distinct opportunities for business value creation: a) better risk-management, b) increased efficiency through reduced waste and resource use, c) better product differentiation, d) new market entrances, e) enhanced brand and reputation, f) greater opportunity to influence industry standards, and g) greater opportunity for radical innovation.[203] 2014 research further suggested that innovation driven by resource depletion can result in fundamental advantages for company products and services, as well as the company strategy as a whole, when right principles of innovation are applied.[204]

One school of thought, often labeled ecosocialism or ecological Marxism, asserts that the capitalist economic system is fundamentally incompatible with the ecological and social requirements of sustainability.[205] This theory rests on the premises that:

Thus, according to this analysis:

By this logic, market-based solutions to ecological crises (ecological economics, environmental economics, green economy) are rejected as technical tweaks that do not confront capitalisms structural failures.[214][215] Low-risk technology/science-based solutions such as solar power, sustainable agriculture, and increases in energy efficiency are seen as necessary but insufficient.[216] High-risk technological solutions such as nuclear power and climate engineering are entirely rejected.[217] Attempts made by businesses to greenwash their practices are regarded as false advertising, and it is pointed out that implementation of renewable technology (such as Walmarts proposition to supply their electricity with solar power) has the effect opposite of reductions in resource consumption, viz. further economic growth.[218]Sustainable business models and the triple bottom line are viewed as morally praiseworthy but ignorant to the tendency in capitalism for the distribution of wealth to become increasingly unequal and socially unstable/unsustainable.[209][219] Ecosocialists claim that the general unwillingness of capitalists to tolerateand capitalist governments to implementconstraints on maximum profit (such as ecotaxes or preservation and conservation measures) renders environmental reforms incapable of facilitating large-scale change: History teaches us that although capitalism has at times responded to environmental movements . . . at a certain point, at which the systems underlying accumulation drive is affected, its resistance to environmental demands stiffens.[220] They also note that, up until the event of total ecological collapse, destruction caused by natural disasters generally causes an increase in economic growth and accumulation; thus, capitalists have no foreseeable motivation to reduce the probability of disasters (i.e. convert to sustainable/ecological production).[221]

Ecosocialists advocate for the revolutionary succession of capitalism by ecosocialisman egalitarian economic/political/social structure designed to harmonize human society with non-human ecology and to fulfill human needsas the only sufficient solution to the present-day ecological crisis, and hence the only path towards sustainability.[222] Sustainability is viewed not as a domain exclusive to scientists, environmental activists, and business leaders but as a holistic project that must involve the whole of humanity redefining its place in Nature: What every environmentalist needs to know . . . is that capitalism is not the solution but the problem, and that if humanity is going to survive this crisis, it will do so because it has exercised its capacity for human freedom, through social struggle, in order to create a whole new worldin coevolution with the planet.[223]

Sustainability issues are generally expressed in scientific and environmental terms, as well as in ethical terms of stewardship, but implementing change is a social challenge that entails, among other things, international and national law, urban planning and transport, local and individual lifestyles and ethical consumerism.[224] "The relationship between human rights and human development, corporate power and environmental justice, global poverty and citizen action, suggest that responsible global citizenship is an inescapable element of what may at first glance seem to be simply matters of personal consumer and moral choice."[225]

Social disruptions like war, crime and corruption divert resources from areas of greatest human need, damage the capacity of societies to plan for the future, and generally threaten human well-being and the environment.[225] Broad-based strategies for more sustainable social systems include: improved education and the political empowerment of women, especially in developing countries; greater regard for social justice, notably equity between rich and poor both within and between countries; and intergenerational equity.[73] Depletion of natural resources including fresh water[226] increases the likelihood of resource wars.[227] This aspect of sustainability has been referred to as environmental security and creates a clear need for global environmental agreements to manage resources such as aquifers and rivers which span political boundaries, and to protect shared global systems including oceans and the atmosphere.[228]

A major hurdle to achieve sustainability is the alleviation of poverty. It has been widely acknowledged that poverty is one source of environmental degradation. Such acknowledgment has been made by the Brundtland Commission report Our Common Future[229] and the Millennium Development Goals.[230] There is a growing realization in national governments and multilateral institutions that it is impossible to separate economic development issues from environment issues: according to the Brundtland report, poverty is a major cause and effect of global environmental problems. It is therefore futile to attempt to deal with environmental problems without a broader perspective that encompasses the factors underlying world poverty and international inequality.[231] Individuals living in poverty tend to rely heavily on their local ecosystem as a source for basic needs (such as nutrition and medicine) and general well-being.[232] As population growth continues to increase, increasing pressure is being placed on the local ecosystem to provide these basic essentials. According to the UN Population Fund, high fertility and poverty have been strongly correlated, and the worlds poorest countries also have the highest fertility and population growth rates.[233] The word sustainability is also used widely by western country development agencies and international charities to focus their poverty alleviation efforts in ways that can be sustained by the local populace and its environment. For example, teaching water treatment to the poor by boiling their water with charcoal, would not generally be considered a sustainable strategy, whereas using PET solar water disinfection would be. Also, sustainable best practices can involve the recycling of materials, such as the use of recycled plastics for lumber where deforestation has devastated a country's timber base. Another example of sustainable practices in poverty alleviation is the use of exported recycled materials from developed to developing countries, such as Bridges to Prosperity's use of wire rope from shipping container gantry cranes to act as the structural wire rope for footbridges that cross rivers in poor rural areas in Asia and Africa.

According to Murray Bookchin, the idea that humans must dominate nature is common in hierarchical societies. Bookchin contends that capitalism and market relationships, if unchecked, have the capacity to reduce the planet to a mere resource to be exploited. Nature is thus treated as a commodity: The plundering of the human spirit by the market place is paralleled by the plundering of the earth by capital.[234]Social ecology, founded by Bookchin, is based on the conviction that nearly all of humanity's present ecological problems originate in, indeed are mere symptoms of, dysfunctional social arrangements. Whereas most authors proceed as if our ecological problems can be fixed by implementing recommendations which stem from physical, biological, economic etc., studies, Bookchin's claim is that these problems can only be resolved by understanding the underlying social processes and intervening in those processes by applying the concepts and methods of the social sciences.[235]

A pure capitalist approach has also been criticized in Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change to mitigation the effects of global warming in this excerpt ...

the greatest example of market failure we have ever seen.[236][237]

Deep ecology is a movement founded by Arne Naess that establishes principles for the well-being of all life on Earth and the richness and diversity of life forms. The movement advocates, among other things, a substantial decrease in human population and consumption along with the reduction of human interference with the nonhuman world. To achieve this, deep ecologists advocate policies for basic economic, technological, and ideological structures that will improve the quality of life rather than the standard of living. Those who subscribe to these principles are obliged to make the necessary change happen.[238] The concept of a billion-year Sustainocene has been developed to initiate policy consideration of an earth where human structures power and fuel the needs of that species (for example through artificial photosynthesis) allowing Rights of Nature.[239]

1. Reduce dependence upon fossil fuels, underground metals, and minerals 2. Reduce dependence upon synthetic chemicals and other unnatural substances 3. Reduce encroachment upon nature 4. Meet human needs fairly & efficiently[240]

One approach to sustainable living, exemplified by small-scale urban transition towns and rural ecovillages, seeks to create self-reliant communities based on principles of simple living, which maximize self-sufficiency particularly in food production. These principles, on a broader scale, underpin the concept of a bioregional economy.[241] These approaches often utilize commons based knowledge sharing of open source appropriate technology.[242]

Other approaches, loosely based around New Urbanism, are successfully reducing environmental impacts by altering the built environment to create and preserve sustainable cities which support sustainable transport. Residents in compact urban neighborhoods drive fewer miles, and have significantly lower environmental impacts across a range of measures, compared with those living in sprawling suburbs.[243] In sustainable architecture the recent movement of New Classical Architecture promotes a sustainable approach towards construction, that appreciates and develops smart growth, architectural tradition and classical design.[244][245] This in contrast to modernist and globally uniform architecture, as well as opposing solitary housing estates and suburban sprawl.[246] Both trends started in the 1980s. The concept of Circular flow land use management has also been introduced in Europe to promote sustainable land use patterns that strive for compact cities and a reduction of greenfield land take by urban sprawl.

Large scale social movements can influence both community choices and the built environment. Eco-municipalities may be one such movement.[247] Eco-municipalities take a systems approach, based on sustainability principles. The eco-municipality movement is participatory, involving community members in a bottom-up approach. In Sweden, more than 70 cities and towns25 per cent of all municipalities in the countryhave adopted a common set of "Sustainability Principles" and implemented these systematically throughout their municipal operations. There are now twelve eco-municipalities in the United States and the American Planning Association has adopted sustainability objectives based on the same principles.[240]

There is a wealth of advice available to individuals wishing to reduce their personal and social impact on the environment through small, inexpensive and easily achievable steps.[248][249] But the transition required to reduce global human consumption to within sustainable limits involves much larger changes, at all levels and contexts of society.[250] The United Nations has recognised the central role of education, and have declared a decade of education for sustainable development, 20052014, which aims to "challenge us all to adopt new behaviours and practices to secure our future".[251] The Worldwide Fund for Nature proposes a strategy for sustainability that goes beyond education to tackle underlying individualistic and materialistic societal values head-on and strengthen people's connections with the natural world.[252]

Application of social sustainability requires stakeholders to look at human and labor rights, prevention of human trafficking, and other human rights risks.[253] These issues should be considered in production and procurement of various worldwide commodities. The international community has identified many industries whose practices have been known to violate social sustainability, and many of these industries have organizations in place that aid in verifying the social sustainability of products and services.[254] The Equator Principles (financial industry), Fair Wear Foundation (garments), and Electronics Industry Citizenship Coalition are examples of such organizations and initiatives. Resources are also available for verifying the life-cycle of products and the producer or vendor level, such as Green Seal for cleaning products, NSF-140 for carpet production, and even labeling of Organic food in the United States.[255]

See the original post here:

Sustainability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

PART I : KEY CONCEPTS 1. Decent Work and the Informal EconomyExplores the main conceptual issues including what is the informal economy, who is in it and what are the main drivers of informality ? It emphasizes that informality manifests itself in different ways according to different country contexts and labour market characteristics. 1.1 Key conceptual issues 2. Measurement of the Informal EconomyExamines the methodological issues related to the collection of accurate data on the informal economy. It highlights the innovations from the international statistical community which will enable data on the informality to be captured more fully. 2.1 Addressing statistical challenges PART II : POLICIES TO SUPPORT TRANSITIONS TO FORMALITY 3. Growth Strategies and Quality Employment GenerationExamines the complex relationship between economic growth and informality. It makes the case for employment-centred macro-economic policies explicitly targeted to curbing informality. 3.1 Patterns of economic growth and the informal economy 4. The Regulatory Framework and the Informal EconomyThis thematic area covers ten technical briefs, which are divided into three subsections (A) international Labour Standards, (B) Specific Groups and (C) Labour Administration. Among the briefs in this section are a survey of ILO Conventions and Recommendations most pertinent to the informal economy; the challenges of applying labour law to micro and small enterprises; a brief on the issues surrounding the employment relationship; technical briefs on gaps in the regulatory frameworks covering specific groups, and briefs examining the scope of labour administration and labour inspection to reach the informal economy. A International Labour Standards 4.a1 The Regulatory Environment and the informal economy: setting a social floor for all who work 4.a2 International Labour Standards (ILS): bringing the unprotected under the law 4.a3 Understanding the employment relationship and its impact on informality B Specific Groups 4.b1 Domestic Workers: strategies for overcoming poor regulation 4.b2 Homeworkers: reducing vulnerabilities through extending and applying the law 4.b3 Street vendors: innovations in regulatory support 4.b4 Micro and Small Enterprises (MSEs), informality and labour law: reducing gaps in protection 4.b5 Strategies for transforming undeclared work into regulated work C Labour Administration 4.c1 Labour administration: overcoming challenges in reaching the informal economy 4.c2 Labour inspection and the informal economy: innovations in outreach 5. Organization, Representation and DialogueSocial dialogue is an essential component of democratic policy making on the informal economy, and good governance in the labour market in general. This section looks at the diverse ways in which informal economy actors are organizing, mobilizing and engaging in social dialogue. 5.1 Social dialogue: promoting good governance in policy making on the informal economy 5.2 The role of Employers organizations and small business associations 5.3 Trade unions: reaching the marginalized and excluded 5.4 Cooperatives: a stepping stone out of informality 6. Promoting Equality and Addressing DiscriminationExamines issues of discrimination and exclusion from formal labour markets which pushes particular groups into informality. It also examines segmentation within informal labour markets and makes the case for inclusive approaches based on equal opportunities for marginalized groups. 6.1 Promoting womens empowerment: a gendered pathway out of informality 6.2 Migrant workers: policy frameworks for regulated and formal migration 6.3 Disability: inclusive approaches for productive work 7. Entrepreneurship, Skills Development, FinanceThis section comprises three briefs: the brief on informal enterprises examines the incentive structures, supports and services which can encourage them to both formalize and upgrade; the brief on skills development looks at how skills upgrading can enhance access to the mainstream economy and the brief on microfinance details how it can be used as a catalyst out of informality through incentives and targeting. 7.1 Informal enterprises: policy supports for encouraging formalization and upgrading 7.2 Enhancing skills and employability: facilitating access to the formal economy 7.3 Microfinance and the informal economy: targeted strategies to move out of informality 8. Extension of Social Protection This section currently contains four briefs. Firstly, on innovative practices in social security and health insurance in an effort to extend social security to all; and three briefs reviewing evolving practices in child care, maternity protection and measures to address the economic and social exclusion of those living with HIV/AIDS. 8.1 Extending social security coverage to the informal economy 8.2 HIV/AIDS: overcoming discrimination and economic exclusion 8.3 Extending maternity protection to the informal economy 8.4 Childcare: an essential support for better incomes 9. Local Development StrategiesThis section examines the potential of local development strategies to generate integrated measures to support the move out of informality for poor communities. 9.1 Local development: opportunities for integrated strategies for moving out of informality

Read this article:

The Informal Economy and Decent Work: A Policy Resource ...

There has been a longer discussion recently in this article whether a resource based economy will work or not. And the opposers argument was largely centered around a notion that in RBE there will be no contracts, that people can just walk away from their job, and that this will lead to a lack of mining ore. That we wont find people to work in the mines to dig up minerals needed for our social production as he calls it, to produce our cell phones and laptops, etc.

Of course, he does have a point. But not only in regards to mining ore, but in regards to the operation of the whole planet. I understand his concern as I have it myself. The complexity of the world we have today is extremely vast when it comes to the production of goods and services. Of course, mining of ore to extract minerals, is one of the aspects of this complexity. We have a huge production of different products that need everything from aluminum to plastics to glass to silicon to mention but a tiny percentage of the whole. And all of these minerals and raw materials are processed in a lot of different places and manufactured into a huge amount of different products. And this goes on on thousands of locations all over the planet.

All of the alternative solutions to the problems we have in the world today deal with solutionswithin the monetary system. We have recycling, carbon shares, cradle to cradle, environmental protection, and so forth. All of these deals with the industry and the monetary system staying as it is. Recycling means that we have to recycle the minerals and raw materials used in many of our products. Carbon shares is a monetary way for the society to be able to continue to pollute the environment, but it will cost a bit more for the polluter. Cradle to cradle means that industries produce everything with the termination and recycling of the product in mind, not using any harmful agents in the product. Environmental protection is the total of allmeasures taken in regards to protect the environment, but still within the monetary system.

All of these measures assumethat the monetary system, the industry, the free market and so forth stay largely as it is. With recycling, cradle to cradle and carbon shares thinking, we still think in terms ofcontinuousconsumption and unlimited economic growth.

It is understandable that the majority of people can not think in terms of changing the whole system, from the root and up, because it is very difficult to think that far out of the box.

We have all become used to our way of life, with tonnes and tonnes of different products inthousandsof different categories. And we all think that this has to go on. We all think that we need hundreds of different producers of cell phones, lap tops, cars, mattresses, guitars, etc. etc.

Yes, we, humans are an industrious race. We have ideas, we produce, we manufacture, we consume, and we do it all over again. This is who we are. Isnt it? Humans have proven to be full of ideas and ingenious solutions to many of the problems of being human. We are also very good at creating problems for ourselves, so that we can have yet more to solve. We constantly do this, and it seems to be human nature. And we all want to be free. Free to do what we want, travel where we want, think and say what we want, work with what we want and live wherever we want. Of course, this kind of freedom is limited to only a few in our world today.

My point and question is; How can/will a resource based economy work on a global scale, without it becoming a totalitarian system? For sure, none of us wants any global machinegovernment, even though that is what Jacque Fresco of The Venus Project proposes. We all wants to be able to make our owndecisions. So, how can it work, then? We are all so indoctrinated into thinking that if theres no penalty in terms of job loss, money loss, property loss and so forth, we cant get people to do what is needed in society.

We think that if everyone will be able to do whatever they want to do, then we will lack a whole lot of people to dig ore as our commenter puts it. No one will take on a dangerous job like going into the mines and dig out the urgently needed minerals to produce our cell phones, because when he/she gets everything he/she needs, he/she could simply walk away whenever he/she wants. Since there wouldnt be any binding contract (in terms of money/property/job loss) in a resource based economy, the whole of society would simply collaps.

Trust me, I truly, really and utterly understand this concern and this disbelief in a resource based economy.

The first time I heard about RBE, Iimmediatelygot a feeling that this is good, but at the same time, I couldnt get it to work in my intellectual analyzing mind. And thats why I started this blog. I felt strongly that RBE is possible, and not only possible, but the best alternative humanity has ever been able to choose. But I couldnt prove it. Because I too was totally indoctrinated in my mind in regards to thinking about money and property as givens. As something thats always been there, like air. It has taken me a couple of years to dedoctrinate myself into seeing how RBE can be possible.

So, back to our question. If we have no money or need for money, and everything is provided for everyone, what will make people work in the mines and do all the dirty work needed in our society? It is a very good question, and I am not sure that I can give a 100% answer to that. Because I dont know. I can only speculate and imagine, which I have done for a couple of years. And my answer goes like this:

Firstly, we have to think of RBE as a totally and utterly different society. We can not think of an RBE society with our monetary goggles. We have to take them off. We have to be able to imagine that the individuals on this planet can actually shift their way of thinking from a penalty based society to a freedom of contribution society where we do what we do because we want to contribute to society in meaningful ways. Many people think this way already and refuse to take jobs just to earn money but do what they do because of theirconviction in a different society. They have an inherent need to do something meaningful that truly contributes to this world.Thinking that there has to be a monetary penalty lurking in the background to get people to do what is really needed in society is seeing this with the old monetary goggles.

The truth is that the monetary reward is over rated in terms of production efficiency. There have numerous studies that support this. Take a look atDan PinksTED Talk about this phenomena and the animation made from it. What is shows is that higher incentives leads to worse performance. It sounds like a self contradictory statement, but when you think about it and see the background, it is not. And these results have been replicated over and over again bypsychiatrists, sociologists and economists. For simple, straight forward tasks, if you do this, then you get that, monetary incentives are great. But when a task gets more complicated, when it requires some more conceptual thinking, the monetary incentives dont work.

What the research continues to show is that money is a motivator only when it gets people to take on a job. After getting the job, there are other factors that leads to betterperformanceand personal satisfaction, and they are; Autonomy, mastery and purpose. Money only plays a part if the job doesnt pay good enough for people to make a living. As soon as people are paid enough, then these other factors are the important ones.

What this shows is that the true values within humans are not penalty centered, but rather centered around our previous notion of freedom of contribution. Autonomy is a vital value. People wants to feel that they have a freedom to choose what they do and how they do it. Mastery is an equally important value. To have enough education and experience to really feel that one masters and succeeds in resolving the tasks at hand. And last, but not least:purpose. We all have to feel a sense of purpose in what we do. It has to be meaningful. In other words, money, and the threat of a monetary penalty is not the reasons why people do stuff.

This shows to prove that people actually might be digging ore if there is a sense of autonomy, mastery and purpose in the job.

Then we come to the point where we have to take off the monetary goggles and put on the RBE goggles instead. When we have this totally brand new world and way of thinking, there would be so many things that would be different. Since people doesnt have to take a job because of money anymore, what would people do? Why would they do anything? Well, the formersection should give the answer. People would seek meaningful and purposeful tasks. We would seek tasks where we feel a sense of autonomy and mastery. I think we also can add several reasons why people would do stuff that the mentioned research doesnt show. Likeexcitement, interest and fulfillment.

So, meaning, purpose, mastery, autonomy, excitement, interest and fulfillment are what really drives people, and what will drive people in a resource based economy.

Now, back to digging ore. If this activity brings any of the above mentioned elements, people will do it. But, when we have a resource based economy, where most people have waken up from the continuous consumption cycle and where most people wants to contribute to the betterment of society, things like digging ore will not be as needed as before. Why? Because of several things. With the new mindset of humanity, consumption will go drastically down. Not so much new minerals and raw materials has to be dug up. Production will go down too, as products will be made to last and instead of postponing the release of new technology to maximize profit, the newest technology can be released right away, thus saving millions of tonnes of raw material that other wise would have been used in the never ending new products. And lastly, technology that digs ore will be developed, minimizing the need for human personell way down in the mines.

To see how a resource based economy can work, we can divide it into 4 categories:

1. The human values has changed, or rather, has become acknowledged.

2. Technology has become more and more developed, removing the need for humans doing dangerous andrepetitivetasks.

3. As a result of RBE, society as a whole has changed drastically.

4. The notion of property and ownership has changed.

The most important first step for RBE to work is the human values. As we see, people are intrinsically motivated by other things than money, like a sense of purpose and meaning. It is only todays need for money that locks people into a mind prison thinking that money is what motivates them, when it really is not.

So this is about education and awakening. For RBE not to be a totalitarian, global, machine based government, which non of us want, people have to wake up one by one into the truth of their own motivation. We, as individuals have to train ourselves and each other into thinking of why we are here and what we really want to do, not in terms of money, but in terms of what we feel as our true purpose here on the planet.

I am training myself everyday to think this way. And the way I do it is to tell my self that every thing I do, I do of service to the planet and humanity, service to others, and service to my self. Service to my self in terms of what I want to do here on earth. And, I have already had theepiphanythat being of service to others can be extremely fulfilling for my self. Thus, doing what I do the very best way I can do it, is a fulfilling thing. And this has nothing to do with money. What is funny, though, is that since I started thinking like this, I have had more to do in my business than ever before, which of course brings in much more money than ever before as well.

Of course, we can say that money is a means of gratitude, a flow of appreciation, going from one person to another. I am not opposed to that way of thinking. Far from it. It is just that money and property and the whole management of the whole planet has been so thoroughly fucked up by the money logic, that trying to think of a world totally without money and property would do us all very good. It certainly does me good. And I realize that as soon as I start to think in terms of money, Iimmediatelyget that old stressful feeling again. It is me not thinking about money but at my purpose of being of service that brings the money in! Because when I think that I dont need money, I become relaxed, and the law of attraction works in my favor.

And then, my friends, what would be the logicalconsequenceof this? Well, if all of us started thinking of our purpose, rather than money, and doing things out of purpose rather than money.we wouldnt need any money! When our purpose is to be of service, to give and share, then everyone will always have enough of everything ever needed.And low and behold, we would actually live purpose- and meaningful lives. Every one of us. No need to stress for more money, paying bills, pay taxes, take up loans, do accounting, pay insurance, and what have you.

For a resource based economy to work, more and more people on the planet have to wake up to this reality. It is a human choice that we have to do as individuals. There are already a whole lot of volunteers around the world working for non-profit volunteer organizations. So the notion is not new. The question is whether it will spread to the rest of society as well. But that a whole world could work for free for each other should be totally possible. At least when enough (critical mass) people realize the benefits of doing this, rather than toiling with money and all that it entails.

When the new value system is in place, when enough people realize the above mentioned, both people who now are in normal jobs, but also those who are in politics and those who run large corporations, the abandonment of money will be a reality. Then, with the profit motive gone, technology can be developed without the hindrances that patents and greed used to be for unlimited development.

When we can concentrate on developing the best technology for everyone in every circumstance, and we can truly let technology replace 99% of todays jobs. Jobs that now are kept open, since replacing them with technology would bedevastatingfor the economy. Today, millions of people still work in factories doning work that easily could have been replaced by machines, robots and technology. There are already a whole lot of machines and technology in place, but again and again, I see people closing the lid on cardboard boxes and other meaninglessrepetitivetasks easily replaceable by technology.

And back to the ore digging metaphor. I am pretty sure that this field is also one where technology and machines could do much more work then it does today, replacing the need for human personell in mines. Besides, when we truly make products to last, and human values have changed, we wont consume as much, and we will be able to recycle 100% of all waste, maybe extracting enough of what raw materials we need, not needing to dig much more holes in the planet. In other words, technology teamed with the new human values, will make the need for constantly new stuff much much less, and thus the need to constantly dig up new resources.

And to me, being a part of a world where we all try to maximise human and environmental potential and protection, rather than profit, and where we work to develop technology to serve these ends is very interesting and fulfilling.

It would also be a true investment in humanity and the planet. An investment where we strive to take care of the environment,build up the soil, educate all humans and build asustainableworld. A world we all can truly enjoy for the rest of our lives and for all coming generations.

Now, with the human values and the new focus ontechnologyin place, society will change drastically. We all work to fulfill our purpose in life, for our own and others betterment, to master new skills, to share our knowledge and experience and to have exiting and meaningful work. In a society with no money or propertywe can all truly care about each other with no secret agenda.

All humans will be educated to serve other humans and the planet itself. The population will automaticallystabilize when everyone understands that every person can not have more then one child in his/her lifetime, meaning maximum twochildren per family. When this is followed we will have a one birth per one death, securing a stable population on the planet. And this is made by individual choice, not by force. By choice, because people now are educated to see the whole picture, and their own place in it.

What used to be companies and corporations will transform to be hubs of knowledge within their respective fields. There can still be employees, but they wont be there because they need to collect a pay check. They will be there because it is their field of interest and ofexpertise, because they want to be there. To participate and collaborate. People can still start businesses, but not for monetary gain, but to work together on new solutions to old or new problems, to create works of art, to draw new buildings, develop new transportation or new types of energy, new medicines or what have you.It will be a purpose driven world, rather than a profit driven one. It will be a world where human potential is maximized in all aspects.

So then, what would the ore miners do? Maybe some of them have been working in the mine for years and years and know nothing else. Maybe these would want to continue doing what they do, but maybe a little less. Maybe take a long vacation, or only work a couple of days a week. Maybe this leads to adeficiencyofColtan for a while, but so what? So what if we dont get the new iPhone 5 this fall. So what if we dont get the newest flat screen 52 inches LED powered Full HD TV this christmas. So what!?

The only thing in this world that needs this is the never satisfied, always craving, always consuming, never stopping Monetary System that needs cyclical consumption, planned obsolescence and endless waste to exist. But WE dont need that. We are not consumers, it is this system that has made people this way. It is this system that needs us to constantly consume and crave more and more and more, and no wonder, cause if we dont, the whole system will collaps. Just like that. If we stop buying our cell phones, our cars, our flat screens, our new jeans, ourjewelry, our what have you, there will be no more monetary system. So, thats why we need an alternative ASAP. And here we are, discussing RBE.

Back to the ore miners. Some other of the ore miners might have thought of smarter ways to do things, might have ideas to ease the process of getting up that ore. But, he cant tell anyone about it, because if he does, he might loose his job. Because his idea is for a machine that can DO his job. But now, in the new resource based economy, that is exactly what he can do. Of course, the mining company doesnt need to earn money any more either, so they might also relax a bit, digging that ore.

They have now become a part of a globalcooperationof former mining companies, working together in coordinating what is really needed of mined minerals in the world. And the former ore miner workers idea to a new machine that can replace the humans needed down in the mine is welcomed with open arms. He becomes a part of the new global mining cooperation, working together with researchers, scientists andenvironmentalistson how to provide what is now needed of new minerals in a most planet friendly way.

Some of the other miners also wants to be a part of this and becomes a part of the global team. Then again, other miners might grab the opportunity to do something completely different. One of them had always had an interest for sociology, but never go to study it. He goes of to university. The university that is now open for everyone. And the learning is now strongly aided by new technology, facilitating the possibility for many more people to learn than ever before. Another one had wanted to travel the world. Off she goes, being able to go anywhere she wants for as long as she wants. She learns a lot on her trip, and wants to study anthropology to understandindigenouspeople better, and how they can contribute to the world. A third one had several inventive ideas for improving and cleaning contaminated water. He quickly finds other people within these fields where his ideas becomes picked up, improved, tested and used in the real world, improving water everywhere it is needed.

All former patents are now made public, for everyone to study and contribute to. All secrets ever held by governments are let out in the open. All borders are opened and totally free travel by every one made possible. New efficient, environmentally friendly, energy independent and healthy transportation, housing and cities are built all over the planet. And everyone can live anywhere they want, according to their own interest and need. Everyone can contribute in the fields that interest them the most. Everyone can educate themselves in new fields at any time. The world has become 100% efficient in terms of human satisfaction and development. The question is, what do you want to do?. Not in terms of money, but in terms of what is needed on the planet at any time and what theindividualfeel is fulfilling to spend his or her days on.

There is a natural coordination in this. When a beach is full, one goes somewhere else. When a field is full, when an area is full, when there is no need, one finds something else to do, elsewhere. And there will always be needs that needs to be met. And we meet them in our full ability. If it is too much, we say so and get more help. We all collaborate in this world.

Humanity has discovered its true purpose here on earth. It turned out that it is not to compete for imaginary money and to hoard property, but to build a better world together, so that everyone can participate in true challenges and feel true and lasting joy.

Property and ownership have, as money, been around for thousands of years, and has been the key building blocks in the development of the capitalist socio-economic system. So, what about property and ownership in RBE? I feel the thoughts float towards communism and other not-so-nice isms here. Shall we have no ownership and own no property in RBE?

I will make a distinction here between personal property and public property.Personal property is your movable items that you own, also called movable property. Public property is what today is dedicated to the use of the public, owned collectively by the population or the state.Today, one person can own vast amounts of land and other property as their private property. More and more state property is now also becoming privately owned. This has been the constant struggle between the capitalists and the state for millennia. The state and the public wants to have property available for itscitizens, while the capitalists wants to secure as much property for themselves.

In RBE, some different models can be discussed. Obviously, no one person can own huge amount of land, like there is today. Still, if a family or a person wants and needs some land to have a family domain to live on and to grow their own food on, this could beaccommodated. Then who would accomodate this, one might ask. In Jacque Frescos RBE, there wouldnt be any state. Instead, there would be computerizeddecisionmaking, determining the fate of humanity. I can not see this working on a large, global scale. For sure, computers can, and does, make a lot of day to day decisions. And for sure, they can and willdefinitelybe extended to make more societal decisions than they do today. But, many decisions will still have to be up to us, the humans. And not to forget, WE are the ones who will be programming the computers, based on what we want out of them.

I foresee some kind of coordination, where coordinators and informators are assigned to different areas on the planet. The persons will not have any deciding power, but will coordinate and inform, together with data technology, what is decided on a particular place. They will be coordinating and informing the community, so to speak. But the community will have constant voting power in all relevant areas. Not like today, where someone are elected, and you have to stick with that person for the remainder of the period. I say relevant areas, because some things can not be voted upon, like the best angle for the pillar under the bridge that is to be built. These types of decisions are up to the specialized personell.

Computers and coordination aside, back to the land. The Venus Project proposes to build completely new cities that would be 100% self sufficient in terms of energy and food production, and very efficient in terms of transportation, energy use and waste management. This is something that would be a naturalextensionof RBE, when the majority of humans starts to think not in terms of money, but in terms of the betterment of people and the planet. So, new and more efficient cities is a natural way to use the land. At the same time, existing cities will be optimized as much as possible in terms of energy use, transportation and waste management. Buildings and parts of cities that are too difficult to optimize, will be recycled into new uses.

Today we have a lot of farming on the planet. Outside our existing cities there are hectare upon hectare of fields of all sorts, producing everything from maize to potatoes and rice to grapes. Today, all of the production of food is dependent on oil, both for transportation, but also for fertilizers and pesticides. An lot of todays food production is simply thrown away to uphold the food prizes on the global marked. Too much bananas? Then we throw some mega tonnes away, so that the rest can be sold for a good prize. Today, millions of tonnes of food is thrown away every day, because unsold food rot away in supermarkets waste containers. At the same time our earth and soil and water gets contaminated with all the artificial fertilizers andpesticidesused to grow the food.

I RBE, the new cities will be 100% self sufficient in terms of food production, utilizing both hydroponics, aquaponics and permaculture principles, providing clean, safe, nutritious and locally produced food all year round with absolutely no use of artificial fertilizers and pesticides. Very little food will go to waste in RBE, and we will thus need to produce much less of it, than today. So, some land around the cities will be used for food production for that respective city. And since there is no competition between food producers, the food production can be optimized to the true need of the population, minimizing wasteful production and transportation.

Of course, there will be a lot of room for individual choice in RBE, much more than today, where individual choice is determined by ones money amount. If one wants to live on an old type farm, on the country side, one can do this. This is not problem. There is still plenty of land on the planet, and people who wants to live in wooden old houses, redecorate themselves and grow their own food, can do that. If they wants to combine and use the latest technology on their land, they can do that too.

Just as today, we will in RBE have three major categories of land:

1. Cities

2. Country side

3. Wilderness

In difference from today, we will all have access to all of it. Of course, if someone is using it already, and that use is needed, then that part of the land is taken. Just like when you come to a beach, you dont put your towel on top on someone elses. No you put your towel somewhere else on the beach. And if the beach is full, you go somewhere else, or come back another day. And property will be used purposefully. If there is a factor there, producing clothing or something else, then that property is used for that, just like today, except that no one own the factory, but all of us. Someone has responsibility over it, but no one owns it.

In todays world, we see that in many cases, things work better if they are privately owned and sold to the public. At the same time, privately owned corporations can be responsible for a lot of pollution and misbehaving. In other cases, public services work better than private. It seems like it all boils down to the individuals behind it. A corporation can be (quite) environmentally conscious, treat its employers well, and work pretty well for all parties. Still, it is totally binded by the demand of the owners and employees to make profit and go well economically speaking. This, more often than not, ruins the businesses possibility to act in a responsible way when it comes to the environment and to its employees.

Then we come to todays public services. Some work well, some work terrible. At least, there isnt as pronounced profit motive here, as with the privately owned corporations, so more regards can be given to environment and human health. But again, public services are also dependent on money, and thus, are also somewhat a slave to the profit motive.

Privately or publicly owned. What is best? Again, it seems like it boils down to the persons and the intent behind it. It is the individual persons with their stronger or weaker intent that drives the results in this.

Non of us wants a resource based economy to be a new totalitarian dictatorial system. So, back to our first premise, human values and human awakening. It all boils down to this. We, as individuals have to wake up andconsciouslychoose this new direction. We have to consciously choose to share our property and give it up as our own. We have to understand the value in RBE against todays system, and choose based on what works best.

Property is a mindset. As written in another article, we dont really own anything. Ownership is an illusion. We think we own things, we believe we own stuff, but really, we dont. At best, we can say that this is in my possession as long as I need it and use it. This is the only ownership we will ever have overanything. You have a pair of jeans. You might have bought them in a store, you might have gotten them as a gift, or you might have picked them up for free in a used clothes container or sharing market. In any case, you are in possession of them right now. You might lend them to a friend, you might give them away tomorrow, they might be ripped apart by your dog, you might loose them on a trip, or you might throw them away. In any case, when were they yours? Were yours when they were made at the factory? Are they still yours after you have given them away?

No, the notion of ownership and property is only a construction to make the capitalistic society work.Ownership and property has been tools to create the economy and the system we have today, the monetary capitalistic system. There is no real ownership in nature. There is only temporary use and respect for each other. As long as we respect each other, our personal space, then we will have no problems. You can keep a pair of pants for as long as you will, but they are never truly yours. You can walk in the forest, and as you walk on the path, you are using the path, but it is never your property.

So, how will property and ownership work in a resource based economy? It will work like it works in nature. You will own your creations, but not in a way that prevents others to use them and continue to develop them. You will own your pants, but only as long as you need and want them. You will own everything you need as long as you need it.In other words, all land will be public, but you can grow your own vegetables on a plot of land and take care of that as your own as long as you would like that. But you cant claim vast amounts of land as your own if you or your family doesnt need it. You will own your personal property for as long as you want and need it, and the rest will be public property.

In other words, all land will be public, but one can get designated areas to have for instance a family domain or to grow you own vegetables. In general, we will work together to use land and grow food in the most sustainable ways, with or without machinery.

Housing will also be common and open to anyone. Meaning that if you want to live one place for a longer period, you can do that for as long as you want. But if you want to move, you can do that too. And you dont need to bring all the furniture with you, since that will exist on the new place. To travel and visit other countries and cultures will also be much easier in a resource based economy.

In genreal, the distinction is between ownership and accessibility. It should be pretty clear by now, that when no one owns anything, but have access to everything, we all will have much much more access to all the things we today have limited or no access to. At the same time, a lot less would have to be produced of the same things.

Take cars, for instance. Today we have a vast amount of cars on the planet, and more are produced every single day. Still, most of them stands still for 90% of the time, not being in use. So, we have parking lots brim full of unused cars, because we all have to own one. When we instead ownnothing, but have access toeverything, we wouldnt need one tenth of the cars we have today. When we instead share cars, we can all have access to a lot more cars than when we all have to own one car each. We will even have access to cars we never dreamed of driving before.

When we share everyone gets more. Both of land, cars, travel possibilities, boats, clothing, furniture, technology and what have you. Our choices becomes virtuallyunlimitedin RBE vs. in todaysownershipsystem.

For example, Google (one of the new knowledge hubs in RBE) have developed technology for cars so that they can drive themselves (See video here).With this kind of technology, there wouldnt be any problem with sharing cars. One could have a car pool, where one could simply order a car, and the car would show up on your frontporch. You wouldnt even have to drive it if you didnt want to. You could get in, and relax with a good book, check out the scenery, or take a nap, while the car safely drives you to all the way to your destination.

Of course, this is only the beginning. Eventually, cars will also be electric, non-polluting, and maybe even fly!

In summing up, a resource based economy is hard to imagine from our existing mindset and what we are used to. It sounds to good to be possible. But why not? This might be the only solution we have if we want to survive as a species. Maybe we simply have to make it work.

Personally, I think RBE is more than possible. I think it is viable and a real solution for humanity. We are already half way there, with all the voluntarism that exists in the world.

The future is limitless. But only if we let go of the hoarding and self centeredness and look at what isreally possible when we abandon money an focus together on our common future.

Maybe we can look at a resource based economy as the worldtoday, only without money and property, the hopeless financial crisises, wars andbackwardsthinking, but with an emphasis on sharing, experimenting, exploring, collaborating and celebrating.

With a common effort, focussing on values and technology, we can do it. Why not?

Read the rest here:

Will a Resource Based Economy Work?

How to make coconut chia pudding

This crazy Singapore school looks like it's made from rainbow lollipops

A new LEED pilot credit for Water Restoration Certificates

Parksmart enables our clients to meet their sustainability goals

Green Sports Alliance leads GADOS volunteers at Houstons Yes Prep Northside

CDC issues historic Zika virus warning for northern Miami

AutoNaut secures investment from Seike Group to advance R&D

Basurama transforms landfill trash into playgrounds in Taipei

Sydney artist upcycles wooden blinds into beautiful pendant lamps

A rural Montana farm is turned into an artistic dream destination called Tippet Rise

BMW to rival the Tesla Model 3 with an all-electric 3 Series

Hyperloop One opens the world's first Hyperloop factory

New protective timber slats shield the renovated Escu House from Sydney's sun

New chemical-free desalination tech helps bring water surplus to Israel

Mother trees recognize kin and send them "messages of wisdom"

Experts to Rio Olympic athletes: Don't put your head underwater

Take a spin inside this psychedelic ball made of hammers at Porto's midsummer festival

San Diego's first off-grid Passive House has its very own wind turbine

Herzog & De Meuron's stunning Elbphilharmonie to finally open in January

PSU students design Pickathon concert stage out of wooden 2x4's

Plan Review Services

World's most efficient electric car gets an outrageous 26,135 MPGe

UWE to install largest single roof-mounted solar panel array in UK University sector

Beautiful brick ambulance station in the UK renovated as a cozy vacation home

Tesla is building an electric minibus based on the Model X

This cool Tournesol swimming pool opens up like a futuristic flower

Read the rest here:

circular economy news, closed loop, resource efficiency

4.1 Increased resource efficiency is essential for continued socio-economic progress

The emergence of resource efficiency and the low-carbon economy as European policy priorities is grounded in a recognition that the prevailing model of economic development based on steadily growing resource use and harmful emissions cannot be sustained in the long term. Already today, Europe's systems of production and consumption look vulnerable. The continent's ecological footprint (i.e.the area needed to meet Europe's resource demand) is twice the size of its land area (WWF, 2014), and the EU is heavily and increasingly reliant on imports to meet its resource needs (Eurostat, 2014d).

At the most basic level, resource efficiency captures the notion of 'doing more with less'. It expresses the relationship of society's demands on nature (interms of resource extraction, pollutant emissions and ecosystem pressures more broadly) to the returns generated (such as economic output or improved living standards). The transition to a low-carbon economy is one particularly important aspect of the broader goal of reducing the environmental burden of society's resource use.

Increasing resource efficiency is essential to sustain socio-economic progress in a world of finite resources and ecosystem capacity, but it is not sufficient. After all, increasing efficiency is only an indication that output is growing more than resource use and emissions. It does not guarantee a reduction in environmental pressures in absolute terms.

In assessing the sustainability of European systems of production and consumption, it is therefore necessary to move beyond measuring whether production is increasing faster than resource use and related pressures ('relative decoupling'). Rather, there is a need to assess whether there is evidence of 'absolute decoupling', with production increasing while resource use declines (Figure 4.1). In addition to assessing the relationship of resource use to economic output, it is also important to evaluate whether the environmental impacts resulting from society's resource use are decreasing ('impact decoupling').

While the notion of 'doing more with less' is conceptually very simple, quantifying resource efficiency is often more complex in practice. First, resources differ greatly. Some are non-renewable, some renewable; some are depletable, some are not; some are hugely abundant, some extremely scarce. As a result, aggregating different resource types is often misleading and sometimes impossible.

Equally, the benefits that society derives from resources also vary greatly. In some instances it makes sense to evaluate resource efficiency by comparing resource inputs to economic outputs (for example GDP). In other cases, assessing whether society is using resources in ways that deliver the most benefits requires a broader approach, encompassing non-market factors such as the cultural values associated with landscapes.

Assessing resource efficiency trends therefore requires a range of different perspectives. Sections 4.34.10 of this chapter attempt to do this by addressing three different questions:

In recent years, resource efficiency and the low-carbon society have emerged as central themes in global discussions on the transition to a green economy (OECD, 2014; UNEP, 2014b). The fundamental importance of these issues to future prosperity is likewise reflected in Europe's medium- and long-term planning. For example, priority objective 2 of the 7th Environment Action Programme (EU, 2013) identifies the need to 'turn the Union into aresource-efficient, green, and competitive low-carbon economy'.

At the strategic level, EU policy sets out a broad framework for resource efficiency and climate change policy, including a variety of long-term (non-binding) objectives. For example, the Roadmap to aResource Efficient Europe (EC, 2011c) includes a vision for 2050, wherein 'the EU's economy has grown in a way that respects resource constraints and planetary boundaries, thus contributing to global economic transformationallresources are sustainably managed, from raw materials to energy, water, air, land and soil'(5). Similarly, the Roadmap to alow-carbon economy (EC,2011a) stipulates that, by 2050, the EU should cut its emissions to 80% below 1990 levels through domestic reductions.

These are complemented by policies addressing specific pressures and sectors. The EU's 2020 targets on greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption (EC, 2010) are prominent examples. Others include the Regulation on Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (EU, 2006), the Industrial Emissions Directive (EU, 2010a) and the European Commission's White Paper on Transport (EC, 2011e).

Another important cluster of policies aims to facilitate a shift away from the linear 'take-make-consume-dispose' pattern of growth, towards a circular model that extracts maximum value from resources by keeping them within the economy when a product has reached the end of its life. As noted in the European Commission's communication, Towards a circular economy: a zero-waste programme for Europe (EC, 2014d), the transition to a circular economy requires changes across supply chains, including in product design, business models, consumption choices, and prevention and management of waste.

Topic

Overarching strategies

Related directives

General

Resource-efficient Europe flagship initiative under the Europe 2020 Strategy

Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe

Roadmap for moving to a competitive low-carbon Europe

Waste

Thematic Strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste

Waste Framework Directive

Landfill Directive

Waste Incineration Directive

Energy

Green Paper on a 2030 framework for climate and energy

Energy Efficiency Directive

Renewables Directive

Transport

Roadmap to a single European transport area

Fuel Quality Directive

Emissions Standards Directives

Water

Blueprint to Safeguard Europe's Water Resources

Water Framework Directive

Design and innovation

Eco-innovation Action Plan

Ecodesign and Energy Label Directives and the Ecolabel Regulation

Faced with growing global competition for resources, European policies have put increasing focus on 'dematerialising' economic output, i.e.reducing the quantity of resources used by the economy. For example, the Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe (EC, 2011c) emphasises the risks associated with rising resource prices and the burdens on ecosystems that result from escalating demand for resources.

The EU's Resource Efficiency Scoreboard (Eurostat, 2014h),which is being developed pursuant to the Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe, presents a mixture of perspectives on resource efficiency trends. Itestablishes 'resource productivity' the ratio of economic output (GDP) to domestic material consumption (DMC) as its lead indicator. Domestic material consumption estimates the amount of raw materials (measured by mass) directly used by an economy, including both materials extracted from domestic territory and net inflows of goods and resources from abroad.

As the European Commission has noted (EC, 2014j), the indicator 'GDP/DMC' has some shortcomings. It clusters diverse resources by weight, obscuring huge differences in scarcity, value and associated environmental impacts. It also provides a distorted picture of resource demands from overseas, because it includes only net imports of resources, rather than encompassing the raw materials consumed in producing imports.

Recognising these limitations, Eurostat has developed EU-27 estimates of raw material consumption (RMC), which is sometimes described as the 'material footprint'. RMC provides a more complete picture of the resource use associated with European consumption by converting imports and exports into 'raw material equivalents', which estimate the raw materials used in producing traded goods. As illustrated in Figure 4.2, this conversion leads to a substantial increase in the resource use associated with EU external trade, although the overall impact on total EU resource consumption is fairly small.

Despite their limitations, DMC and RMC can provide a useful indication of the physical scale of the economy. As illustrated in Figure 4.2, EU resource consumption declined in the period 20002012, although the financial crisis of 2008 and subsequent economic recessions in Europe clearly contributed to this trend.

Note:Raw material consumption data are only available for the EU-27. For comparability, the domestic material consumption data cover the same countries.

Source:Eurostat,2014d, 2014e.

In contrast to the decline in material consumption, EU-28 GDP grew by 16% between 2000 and 2012. As a result, EU-28 resource productivity (GDP/DMC) increased by 29%, from 1.34EUR/kg of resources used in 2000 to 1.73 EUR/kg in 2012. Despite recent improvements in resource productivity, European consumption patterns remain resource intensive by global standards.

In addition, other estimates of European resource use present a less optimistic picture of efficiency improvements. For example, Wiedmann et al. (2013) calculate that the EU-27 material footprint increased in line with GDP in the period 20002008. This raises questions about the resource intensity of European lifestyles. Apparent efficiency improvements may partially be explained by the relocation of material extraction and manufacturing to other areas of the world.

The notion of the 'circular economy where nothing is wasted' (EU, 2013) is central to efforts to boost resource efficiency. Waste prevention, reuse and recycling enable society to extract maximum value from resources, and adapt consumption to actual needs. In doing so, they reduce demand for virgin resources, thereby mitigating related energy use and environmental impacts.

Improving waste prevention and management requires action across the full product lifecycle, not merely the end-of-life phase. Factors such as design and choice of material inputs play a major role in determining a product's useful lifespan and the possibilities for repair, reusing parts, or recycling.

The EU has introduced multiple waste policies and targets since the 1990s, ranging from measures targeting specific waste streams and treatment options, towards broader instruments such as the Waste Framework Directive (EU, 2008b). These measures are complemented by product legislation such as the Ecodesign Directive (EU, 2009c) and the Ecolabel Regulation (EU, 2010b), which aim to influence both production and consumption choices.

As set out in the Waste Framework Directive, the overarching logic guiding EU policy on waste is the waste hierarchy, which prioritises waste prevention, followed by preparation for reuse; recycling; recovery; and finally disposal as the least desirable option. Viewed against this framework, European trends in waste generation and management are largely positive. Although data gaps and differences in national methodologies for calculating waste introduce uncertainties into data, there is some evidence that waste generation has declined. EU-28 per capita waste generation (excluding mineral wastes) declined by 7% in the period 20042012, from 1943 kg/person to 1817 kg/person (Eurostat, 2014c).

Available data indicate some decoupling of waste generation from economic production in the manufacturing and service sectors, and from household spending in the consumption phase. Per capita generation of municipal waste declined by 4% between 2004 and 2012, falling to 481kg per capita.

Looking beyond waste generation, there are also signs of improved waste management in Europe. Between 2004 and 2010, the EU-28, Iceland and Norway reduced the amount of waste deposited in landfills substantially, from 31% of total waste generated (excluding mineral, combustion, animal and vegetable wastes) to 22%. This was partly due to an improvement in recycling rates of municipal waste, from 28% in 2004 to 36% in 2012.

Better waste management has reduced pressures associated with waste disposal, such as pollution from incineration or landfilling. But it has also mitigated pressures associated with extracting and processing new resources. The EEA estimates that improved municipal waste management in the EU-27, Switzerland and Norway cut annual net greenhouse gas emissions by 57 million tonnes of CO2-equivalent in the period 19902012, with most of that reduction achieved since 2000. The two main factors responsible for this were reduced methane emissions from landfill and avoided emissions through recycling.

Recycled materials meet a substantial proportion of EU demand for some materials. For example, they accounted for about 56% of EU-27 steel production in recent years (BIR, 2013). However, the large differences in recycling rates across Europe (illustrated for municipal waste in Figure 4.3) indicate that there are significant opportunities for increased recycling in many countries. Better recycling technologies, infrastructure, and collection rates could further reduce environmental pressures and European reliance on resource imports, including some critical materials (EEA, 2011a). On the other hand, overcapacity in incineration plants in some countries presents a competitive challenge for recycling, making it harder to shift waste management up the waste hierarchy (ETC/SCP, 2014).

Despite recent progress in waste prevention and management, EU waste generation remains substantial, and performance relative to policy targets is mixed. The EU appears to be progressing towards its 2020 objective of achieving a decline in waste generated per capita. But waste management will need to change radically in order to phase out completely the landfilling of recyclable or recoverable waste. Similarly, many EU Member States will need to make an extraordinary effort in order to achieve the target of 50% recycling of some municipal waste streams by 2020 (EEA, 2013l, 2013m).

Note:The recycling rate is calculated as the percentage of municipal waste generated that is recycled and composted. Changes in reporting methodology means that 2012 data are not fully comparable with 2004 data for Austria, Cyprus, Malta, Slovakia and Spain. 2005 data used instead of 2004 for Poland due to changes in methodology. Due to data availability instead of 2004 data, 2003 data were used for Iceland; 2007 data used for Croatia; 2006 data used for Serbia. For the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, 2008 data were used for 2004, and 2011 used for 2012.

Source:Eurostat Data Centre on Waste.

In order to avoid 'dangerous interference with the climate system', the international community has agreed to limit the global mean temperature increase since pre-industrial times to less than 2 C (UNFCCC, 2011). In line with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment of the actions needed by developed countries to achieve the 2 C target, the EU aims to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 8095% below 1990 levels by 2050 (EC, 2011a).

Pursuant to this overarching goal, European countries have adopted a number of policy measures, including international commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. For 2020, the EU has unilaterally committed to cut its emissions by at least 20% compared to 1990 levels (EC, 2010).

In the last two decades, the EU has made significant advances in decoupling carbon emissions from economic growth. EU-28 greenhouse gas emissions declined by 19% in the period 19902012, despite a 6% increase in population and a 45% expansion of economic output. As a result, greenhouse gas emissions per euro of GDP fell by 44% over this period. EUper capita emissions declined from 11.8 tonnes of CO2-equivalent in 1990 to 9.0 tonnes in 2012 (EEA, 2014h; EC, 2014a; Eurostat, 2014g).

Both macroeconomic trends and policy initiatives have contributed to these emission reductions. Economic restructuring in eastern Europe during the 1990s played a role, particularly via changing agricultural practices and the closure of heavily polluting plants in the energy and industrial sectors.

More recently, the financial crisis and subsequent economic problems in Europe certainly contributed to a sharp decline in emissions (Figure 4.4), although EEA analysis indicates that economic contraction accounted for less than half of the decline in emissions between 2008 and 2012 (EEA, 2014x). In the period 19902012, climate and energy policies had a significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions, boosting energy efficiency and the share of renewables in the energy mix of European countries.

The EU's success in mitigating carbon emissions is reflected in robust progress towards its policy targets in this area. EU-15 total average emissions in the period 20082012 were 12% below base-year levels(6), implying that the EU-15 comfortably achieved its 8% reduction target under the Kyoto Protocol's first commitment period. The EU-28 is already very close to meeting its unilateral 20% reduction target for 2020, and looks well set to achieve its commitment to reduce average emissions to 20% below base-year levels in the Kyoto Protocol's second commitment period (20132020).

These achievements notwithstanding, the EU remains far from the 8095% reduction needed by 2050. According to Member State projections, existing policy measures would only reduce EU-28 emissions by one percentage point between 2020 and 2030, to 22% below 1990 levels, and implementing the additional measures currently planned would increase this reduction to 28%. The European Commission estimates that full implementation of the Climate and Energy Package for 2020 would reduce emissions in 2030 to 32% below 1990 levels (Figure 4.4).

These projections imply existing measures will be insufficient to achieve the 40% reduction by 2030, which has been proposed by the European Commission as the minimum needed to remain on course for the 2050 target (EC, 2014c).

Estimates of the emissions associated with European consumption (including greenhouse gas emissions 'embedded' in net trade flows) indicate that European demand also drives emissions in other parts of the world. Estimates based on the World Input-Output Database indicate that in 2009 the CO2 emissions associated with EU-27 consumption equalled 4407 million tonnes, which was 2% higher than in 1995 (EEA, 2013g). In comparison, the UNFCCC production-based estimate of 4139 million tonnes in 2009, was 9% lower than in 1995. For more information on Europe's contribution to global emissions see Section 2.3.

These data indicate that, in order to meet its 2050 objectives and contribute fully to meeting the global 2 C target, the EU will need to accelerate its implementation of new policies, while restructuring the ways that Europe meets its demand for energy, food, transport and housing.

Although fundamental to modern lifestyles and living standards, energy production is also responsible for considerable harm to the environment and human well-being. As in other world regions, fossil fuels dominate the European energy system, accounting for more than three-quarters of EEA-33 energy consumption in 2011 and almost 80% of greenhouse gas emissions (EEA, 2013i).

Cutting Europe's reliance on fossil fuels by reducing energy consumption and switching to alternative energy sources is essential to achieve the EU's 2050 climate policy goals. It would also deliver substantial additional economic, environmental and social benefits. Fossil fuels are responsible for most emissions of pollutants such as sulphur oxides (SOX), nitrogen oxides (NOX) and particulate matter. In addition, Europe's growing reliance on fossil fuel imports makes it vulnerable to supply constraints and price volatility, particularly in view of the escalating energy demand of fast-growing economies in south and east Asia. In 2011, 56% of all fossil fuels consumed in the EU were imported, compared to 45% in 1990.

Responding to these concerns, the EU has committed that by 2020 it will reduce energy consumption by 20% relative to business-as-usual projections. In absolute terms, that translates into a 12% reduction relative to energy consumption in 2010 (EU, 2012). The EU also intends that renewable energies will contribute 20% of final energy consumption by 2020, with a minimum 10% share in transport (EU, 2009a).

European heads of state and government have agreed new headline targets for 2030, reducing greenhouse gases emissions by at least 40% from 1990 levels, increasing renewable energy to make up at least 27% of final energy consumption, and cutting energy consumption by at least 27% compared to business-as-usual (European Council, 2014).

The EU has already achieved some success in decoupling energy use from economic output. In 2012, gross inland energy consumption in the EU was 1% higher than in 1990, despite a 45% increase in economic output during that period. Although the economic turmoil of recent years has constrained energy demand, policies and measures have also played a key role. Looking ahead, analysis of national energy efficiency action plans indicates that full implementation and enforcement of national energy efficiency policies would enable the EU to achieve its 2020 target (EEA, 2014w).

Turning to the energy mix, the EU remains heavily dependent on fossil fuels, although their contribution to gross inland energy consumption declined from 83% in 1990 to 75% in 2012. This decline was largely offset by increased use of renewable energy, which accounted for 11% of EU primary energy consumption in 2012, up from 4% in 1990 (Figure 4.5). As a result, the EU is on track to achieve its 2020 target for renewables, which requires that they should account for 20% of the EU's gross final energy consumption (EEA, 2013n).

Note:The following percentage figures quantify the proportion of total gross inland energy consumption that each fuel contributed in 2012: oil 34%, gas 23%, coal and lignite 18%, nuclear 14%, renewables 11%, other 0%.

Source:EEA, 2014v.

Ensuring a cost-efficient transformation of the European energy system necessitates a diverse mixture of actions addressing both supply and demand at the continental scale. On the supply side, breaking the continuing dominance of fossil fuels will require a strong commitment to improving energy efficiency, deploying renewable energy, and continuous climate and environment proofing of energy projects. Substantial investments and regulatory change will be needed tointegrate networks and facilitate the growth of renewables. On the demand side, there is a need for fundamental changes in society's energy use. Smart meters, appropriate market incentives, access to finance for households, energy saving appliances, and high performance standards for buildings can all contribute.

European demand for transport has increased in line with GDP in recent years, reflecting the close interdependence of transport and economic development. Although use of several transport modes has declined slightly since 2007 relative to their pre-recession peaks, air travel reached an all-time high in 2011 (Figure 4.6).

Transport systems can also impose numerous costs on society, particularly in terms of air and noise pollution (see also Sections 5.4 and 5.5), greenhouse gas emissions (Section 4.5) and landscape fragmentation (Sections 3.4 and 4.10). Harmful health and environmental impacts from transport can be reduced in three ways: avoiding unnecessary transport; shifting necessary transport from environmentally harmful to more environmentally friendly modes; and improving the environmental performance of all modes of transport, including the efficient use of infrastructure.

European measures to reduce transport emissions have tended to focus on the last of these approaches: improving efficiency. These measures have included fuel-quality standards; exhaust-emission limits for air pollutants and carbon dioxide (CO2); and inclusion of the transport sector within national emission limits for air pollutants (EU, 2001b), and under the EU Effort Sharing Decision for greenhouse gases (EU, 2009b).

These measures have achieved some success. The introduction of technologies such as catalytic converters, for example, has greatly reduced road transport pollution. Member States are also making progress towards the goal of providing 10% of transport energy in each country from renewable sources by 2020. And carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions per km are declining in accordance with the targets set out in EU legislation for new vehicles (EU, 2009d).

Source:Based on EC (2014a) and Eurostat (2014b).

Nevertheless, efficiency improvements alone will not address all environmental concerns, partly because efficiency gains are often offset by growing demand (Box 4.2). Transport, including emissions from international transport, is the only EU sector to have increased its greenhouse gas emissions since 1990, accounting for 24% of total emissions in 2012. Road traffic is also the dominant source of noise in terms of the numbers of people exposed to harmful levels, with rail and aircraft also contributing to population exposure.

Alongside increasing traffic volumes, the promotion of diesel vehicles is contributing to air quality problems. This is because diesel cars generally emit more particulate matter and nitrogen oxides than petrol cars but less carbon dioxide, although recent data indicate that the carbon dioxide difference is decreasing (EEA, 2014l). In addition, NOX emissions from diesel vehicles under real-world driving conditions often exceed the test-cycle limits specified in the Euro emission standards, a problem that also affects official fuel consumption and CO2-emission values.

Developing alternative fuel vehicles could certainly reduce the burden placed on the environment by the transport system. However, it will require very large investments in infrastructure (in both the transport and energy sectors) and the displacement of entrenched fossil fuel-based systems. Moreover, it will not solve other problems such as congestion, road safety, noise levels, and land use.

For these reasons, more fundamental changes in the way Europe transports passengers and goods will be needed. Encouragingly, there is some evidence of a cultural shift away from car use in developed regions, particularly among younger generations (Goodwin, 2012). At the same time, cycling, using a car pool, or opting for public transport are becoming more popular.

Efficiency improvements are often insufficient to guarantee a decline in environmental pressures. Technology-driven gains may be undermined by lifestyle changes or increased consumption, partly because efficiency improvements tend to make a product or service cheaper. This phenomenon is known as the 'rebound effect'. This trend is apparent in the transport sector. Although fuel efficiency and emission characteristics of cars improved steadily in the period 1990 to 2009, rapid growth in car ownership and in kilometres driven offset the potential improvements. The subsequent decline in distance travelled and fuel consumption was clearly linked to the economic problems since 2008.

The European Commission's White Paper on Transport (EC, 2011e) calls for carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from transport to be reduced by at least 60% by 2050, compared to 1990 levels. The use of new technologies has been identified as the most important means to achieve this reduction. However, as the trends in Figure4.7 illustrate, technical solutions may not always deliver expected reductions in environmental pressures. Creating a transport system that maximises social and economic benefits, while minimising environmental and human harm, requires an integrated approach, addressing both production and consumption.

Source: Odyssee database (Enerdata, 2014) and EC, 2014a.

Like the energy and transport sectors, European industry delivers a complex mixture of benefits and costs to society. In addition to producing goods and services, the sector generates substantial employment, earnings and tax revenues. Yet industry also contributes significantly to the emissions of many important air pollutants and greenhouse gases, causing widespread harm to the environment and human health.

EU policies such as the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Directive (EU, 2008a) and related directives have played an important role in limiting the adverse environmental effects of industrial production in recent decades. More recently, the obligations on industry have been brought together in the Industrial Emissions Directive (EU, 2010a), which sets out requirements for some 50000 large industrial installations to avoid or minimise emissions and waste.

In terms of climate change policy, the most important measure addressing industry is the EU Emissions Trading System (EU, 2003, 2009b) (Box 4.3). The EU Emissions Trading System addresses the greenhouse gas emissions from more than 12000 installations in power generation, manufacturing, and industry in 31 countries. It also addresses the greenhouse gas emissions from about 1300 aircraft operators, covering around 45% of EU greenhouse gas emissions in total. Greenhouse gas emissions covered by the EU Emissions Trading System decreased by 19% between 2005 and 2013.

The EU Emissions Trading System is a tool for improving efficiency, offering a means to enhance economic returns within ecosystem boundaries. Itoperates by establishing a limit for the greenhouse gas emissions in various sectors and enabling participants to trade their individual emissions entitlements, thereby creating incentives for emission reductions to occur where they are cheapest.

Although the EU Emissions Trading System has been successful in delivering emission reductions, it has been criticised in recent years for failing to incentivise sufficient low-carbon investment. This has primarily occurred because Europe's unanticipated economic difficulties since 2008 contributed to low demand for allowances. A large surplus of emission allowances accumulated, affecting carbon prices.

As an initial response, the ETS Directive was amended in December 2013 and the auctioning of 900 million allowances was later postponed from 20142016 to 20192020. In January 2014, the Commission proposed establishing a Market Stability Reserve to make the EU Emissions Trading System more robust and ensure that it continues to deliver cost-effective emission reductions (EC, 2014h).

Europe's industrial emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases have decreased since 1990, while sectoral economic output has increased (Figure4.8). Environmental regulations such as the EU's Large Combustion Plant (LCP) Directive (EU, 2001a), have contributed to these reductions. Other factors contributing to emissions reductions include energy efficiency, changes in the energy mix, end-of-pipe pollutant abatement technologies, a shift in Europe away from certain heavy and more polluting types of manufacture, and company participation in voluntary schemes to reduce environmental impacts.

Despite the improvements presented in Figure 4.8, industry continues to contribute significantly to European air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions. In 2012, industry accounted for 85% of emissions of sulphur dioxide (SO2), 40% of emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX), 20% of emissions of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and non-methane volatile organic compounds, and 50% of greenhouse gas emissions in EEA-33 countries (EEA,2014b, 2014h).

Source:EEA, 2014o; and Eurostat, 2014f.

Read the rest here:

4. Resource efficiency and the low-carbon economy ...

Solution Description

Modern society has access to highly advanced technology and can make available food, clothing, housing and medical care; update our educational system; and develop a limitless supply of renewable, non-contaminating energy. By supplying an efficiently designed economy, everyone can enjoy a very high standard of living with all of the amenities of a high technological society. The term and meaning of a Resource Based Economy was originated by Jacque Fresco. It is a whole factor socio-economic system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival. In a resource-based economy all of the world's resources are held as the common heritage of all of Earth's people, thus eventually outgrowing the need for the artificial boundaries that separate people. This is the unifying imperative. Our vision of globalization empowers each and every person on the planet to be the best they can be, not to live in abject subjugation to a corporate governing body.

A resource-based economy would utilize existing resources from the land and sea, physical equipment, industrial plants, etc. to enhance the lives of the total population. In an economy based on resources rather than money, we could easily produce all of the necessities of life, provide a high standard of living for all, universal health care and more relevant education, and most of all by generating a new incentive system based on human and environmental concern. Our vision of globalization empowers each and every person on the planet to be the best they can be, not to live in abject subjugation to a corporate governing body. Our proposals would not only add to the well being of people, but they would also provide the necessary information that would enable them to participate in any area of their competence. The measure of success would be based on the fulfilment of one's individual pursuits rather than the acquisition of wealth, property and power. By overcoming scarcity, most of the crimes and even the prisons of today's society would no longer be necessary. In a more humane civilization, instead of machines displacing people they would shorten the workday, increase the availability of goods and services, and lengthen vacation time. If we utilize new technology to raise the standard of living for all people, then the infusion of machine technology would no longer be a threat. With the elimination of debt, the fear of losing one's job will no longer be a threat. This assurance could reduce mental and physical stress and leave us free to explore our abilities.

A resource-based economy would make it possible to use technology to overcome scarce resources by applying renewable sources of energy, computerizing and automating manufacturing and inventory, designing safe energy-efficient cities and advanced transportation systems. There is no profit, there is no PIB. The main figures in an Resource Based Economy are right the resources of the earth, so it is directly relevant to our sustainable activities. Technology intelligently and efficiently applied, conserves energy, reduces waste, and provides more leisure time. With automated inventory on a global scale, we can maintain a balance between production and distribution. Only nutritious and healthy food would be available and planned obsolescence would be unnecessary and non-existent in a resource-based economy. Considerable amounts of energy would also be saved by eliminating the duplication of competitive products such as tools, eating utensils, pots, pans and vacuum cleaners.

At present, we have enough material resources to provide a very high standard of living for all of Earth's inhabitants. Only when population exceeds the carrying capacity of the land do many problems such as greed, crime and violence emerge. The thought of eliminating money still troubles us, consider this: If a group of people with gold, diamonds and money were stranded on an island that had no resources such as food, clean air and water, their wealth would be irrelevant to their survival. It is only when resources are scarce that money can be used to control their distribution. One could not, for example, sell the air we breathe or water abundantly flowing down from a mountain stream. Although air and water are valuable, in abundance they cannot be sold. Money is only important in a society when certain resources for survival must be rationed and the people accept money as an exchange medium for the scarce resources. Money is a social convention, an agreement if you will. It is neither a natural resource nor does it represent one. It is not necessary for survival unless we have been conditioned to accept it as such.

Read more from the original source:

Resource Based Economy | The Future We Want

What is The Venus Project?

The Venus Project is an organization that proposes a feasible plan of action for social change, one that works towards a peaceful and sustainable global civilization. It outlines an alternative []

The plans of The Venus Project offer society a broader spectrum of choices based on the scientific possibilities directed toward a new era of peace and sustainability for all. Through []

Global problems faced by mankind today are impacting individuals and nations rapidly. Climate change, famine, war, epidemics of deadly diseases and environmental pollution contribute to the long list of global []

The history of The Venus Project offers a unique perspective into Jacque Frescos life. From the early years when he worked at Wright Field to the time he and his []

Visit Jacque Fresco and Roxanne Meadows live at the Research Center in Florida.

Participate in a Seminar lecture and go on a tour around the research center.

Get together with Jacque and Roxanne and get all your questions about The Venus Project and a Resource Based Economy answered.

There are many ways to help The Venus Project. First and foremost is to become aware of this new direction and learn about it as much as you can.

Later you can become a volunteer and help to spread the word and take part in official projects.

Donations to our cause are also very much appreciated.

2016 The Venus Project | All rights reserved unless otherwise noted.

See more here:

The Venus Project

The resource-based view of the firm and strategy, in contrast to the product, or positional, view. This view of the firm started with the seminal work of Penrose (1959), was touched on by Selznik (1957) with his notion of distinctive competencies, defined by Wernerfelt (1984), and elaborated on by Barney in several works (1986a, 1986b, 1991, 2001). The RBV combines the internal analysis of phenomena within companies (a preoccupation of the 'distinctive"" and 'core competency' group) with the external analysis of the industry and the competitive environment (a focus of the industrial organization group.

Basic description of the resource-based view (Newbert, 2008) -- To fully appreciate this theory, it is necessary to understand the terms used.

A firm that has attained a competitive advantage has created economic value (the difference between the perceived benefits of a resource-capability combination and the economic cost to exploit them) than its competitors. Economic value is generally created by producing products and/or services with either greater benefits at the same cost compared to competitors (i.e. differentiation-based competitive advantage) or the same benefits at lower cost compared to competitors (i.e. efficiency-based competitive advantage) (Peteraf and Barney, 2003).

Because superior benefits tend to enhance customer loyalty and perceived quality (Zou, Fang, and Zhao, 2003), a firm that can exploit its resource-capability combinations to effectively attain a differentiation-based competitive advantage should be able to improve its performance compared to competitors by selling more units at the same margin (i.e., parity price) or by selling the same number of units at a greater margin (i.e., premium price).

Furthermore, because a superior cost structure enables greater pricing flexibility as well as the ability to increase available surplus (Barua et al., 2004; Porter and Millar, 1985; Zou et al., 2003), a firm that can exploit its resource-capability combinations to effectively attain an efficiency-based competitive advantage should be able to improve its performance compared to competitors by selling more units at the same margin (i.e., low price) or by selling the same number of units at a greater margin (i.e., parity price). In either case, it is logical to assume that a firm that attains a competitive advantage, whether in the form of greater benefits at the same cost or the same benefits at lower cost, will be able to improve its performance in ways that its competitors cannot.

Practitioner implications -- Given that (1) performance advantage results when valuable and rare combinations of resources and capabilities are applied to reduce costs, exploit market opportunities, and/or neutralize competitive threats, (2) firms of all sizes can achieve advantage, and (3) with novelty one can produce rare and valuable (unique) combinations of resources and capabilities from even common resources and capabilities -- the pursuit of novelty to develop a truly unique basis for advantage is conceivably within the reach of all firms. Distinctive competency (Selznick, 1957) and its renewal is an essential pursuit in the evolution of the firm.

Competitively valuable resources (Collis and Montgomery, 1995) -- A resource-capability combination (for expediency, 'resource' in this section) value is due to its deployment towards competitive advantage: (1) reduction of costs, (2) the exploitation of market opportunities, and/or (3) the neutralization of competitive threats. The 'test' of the strategic value of a resource five-fold, connecting the internal and external factors related to a resource:

Further points... See organizational economics and industrial organization. These terms descibe the broad areas of knowledge relating to the positional view of strategy and the resource view of strategy.

The ""resource view"", contends that a firm's internal resources and capabilities are the best source of competitive advantage over other firms. An approach to strategy with this view then seeks to find or develop distinctive competencies and resources, applying them to produce superior value. To the extent that these competencies can be kept unique to the firm, they can be used to develop a competitive advantage.

Competitive advantage -- (Barney, 1991) The resource-based view focuses on internal resources, the firm's strengths and weaknesses, in contrast to the positional or environmental models of competitive advantage which focuses on opportunities and threats.

Assumptions -- (Barney, 1991) The resource-based model assumes that firms within an industry (or group) may be heterogeneous with respect to the strategic resources they control. Second, this model assumes that these resources may not be perfectly mobile across firms, thus heterogeneity may can be long lasting.

Resource based theory -- Resource based theory sees the firm as a collection of assets, or capabilities. In the modern economy, most of these assets and capabilities are intangible. The success of corporations is based on those of their capabilities that are distinctive. Companies with distinctive capabilities have attributes which others cannot replicate, and which others cannot replicate even after they realise the benefit they offer to the company which originally possesses them.

Business strategy involves identifying a firm's capabilities: putting together a collection of complementary assets and capabilities, and maximising and defending the economic rents which result. The concept of economic rent is central in linking the competitive advantage of the firm to conventional measures of performance.

John Kay, http://www.johnkay.com/about/, April 7, 2007

Highly efficient resources, uniquely efficient, form a resource position barrier that is effective because of the lower expected returns on the same type of resources if acquired by a competitor. One's chance of maximizing market imperfections and perhaps getting a cheap resource buy would be greatest if one tried to build on one's most unusual resource or resource position. Looking at diversified firms as portfolios of resources rather than portfolios of products gives a different and perhaps richer perspective on their growth prospects (Wernerfelt, 1984).

Strategy for diversified firms (Wernerfelt, 1984) -- The resource perspective provides a basis for addressing some key issues in the formulation of strategy for diversified firms, such as:

""Strategy for a bigger firm involves striking a balance between the exploitation of existing resources and the development of new ones. In analogy to the growth-share matrix, this can be visualized in what we will call a resource-product matrix.""

See the original post:

resource-based view - Create Advantage

The term resource based economy was coined by Jacque Fresco in The Venus Project as the name for what kind of economic system he envisions in the future. As there is a lot of talk about technology, design, architecture and the like this website tries to discuss the term resource based economy from a human perspective based on existing and possible future values on this planet. When this website was formed, one found almost nothing about a resource based economy online in spite of the websites of The Venus Project and The Zeitgeist Movement. This site was made to remedy that. Still, the term resource based economy can be replaced/overlapped by many other terms.

Resource Based Economy (RBE), Natural Resources Economy, Resource Economy, Moneyless Economy (MLE), Love Based Economy (LBE), Gift Economy (GE),Priceless Economic System (PES), Trust Economy (TE), Voluntary Collaborative Economy (VCE), Sharing Society, Resource Based Society, Moneyless Society, Love Based Society, Ubuntu, etc. etc. It is all the same thing. It doesnt really matter what we call it, as long as it has the basic notion of an economic system where no money is used, ownership and trade is abandoned and replaced with usership and giving and all resources (both human and planetary) are shared and managed properly. On this site we will mainly use the term Resource Based Economy. We could add Gift in the title (Resource Based Gift Economy), to emphasize that on a local micro level, we need to simply give and share our personal resources, while we at the same time, on a global macro level, manage global resources.

This site is dedicated to the development of a resource-based economy (RBE) on our planet. Here we can fantasize, visualize and imagine what RBE can be like in all aspects of life. From questions like Will there still be coffee shops, and who would work there? to How can RBE be implemented in the developing countries? and everything in between. RBE implies a million questions that needs to be answered before we can make this real. We need people in all categories to develop RBE. A main aim is to get this information out to people so the whole world can start to imagine and picture what a life in abundance without money can be like. This site can be used as a portal for initial introduction to the subject. We allow/encourage respectful duplication of this information.

What is a resource-based economy? Heres a quick definition:

A resource-based economy is a society without money, barter or trade, with the awareness that Humanity is One family and where technology, science and spirituality is used to its fullest to develop and manage the planets resources to provide abundance for everyone in the most sustainable way.

And heres an extended definition:

The continual emergence of a system of self imposed management of human and natural resources both locally and globally where money, trading and ownership is replaced by gratitude, sharing and usership in a way where everyones needs are met.

A resource-based economy uses the original meaning of the word economy, which used to bemanagement of material resources. In addition to material resources, we can put natural resources and human resources. It is a society without money with the earths resources shared where it is needed without any form of exchange, barter or payment. It is not a new communistic approach. Neither is it socialism or capitalism. Its beyond communism, socialism, feudalism, fascism, capitalism or any other ism. Its beyond any social system that has ever existed on this planet, at least in our awareness. In communism the state owns everything. In socialism the state owns something while the rest is privately owned. In capitalism everything is privately owned.

In a resource-based economy the worlds population doesnt own anything, but has access to everything. Anything ever needed, like food, clothing, housing, travel, etc. etc. is provided in abundance through the use of our updated knowledge, values and technology. Theres no state that is the owner of the resources, and nothing is privately owned. In RBE the worlds resources are considered the heritage of all the inhabitants of this planet, not just a select few. RBE is not a society where we will live in scarcity with few resources. It is not a society where a few control and distribute the resources. No, it is a totally new society where we let todays and tomorrows technology be developed to its fullest to work for us, and where we utilize knowledge about nature and technology to provide a life in abundance for everyone. It is a society where we truly have the option to take care of each other instead of struggling to survive.

It is a totally new way of life, unimaginable within todays value system, but still something most people truly long for in their hearts. It is a world where we can call ourselves Free and live with dignity and respect for each other, nature, the planet and the universe. It is a concept where value no longer is measured by money, but rather by the joy we feel, the contributions we make, and the development we take part in. It is a society where we utilize our minds and hearts in providing a healthy life for everyone, developing our knowledge about nature and technology, and using this in the most sustainable way.

Imagine a world without money, barter or exchange, where everything is provided for everyone, and everyone can pursue their own interests and dreams and live in the way they want. Be it moving closer to nature and grow your own garden of delicious vegetables, travel the globe and experience the wonders of the planet, make and perform your own music or collaborate with others to develop a new invention for the betterment of society. In a society where we dont have to think about money and profit, we can truly develop ourselves and the human race into something completely wonderful.

The monetary system doesnt work anymore and is obsolete. This is obvious when you look at todays world with increasing unemployment, financial crisis, endless consumption producing endless waste and pollution, not to speak of crime and wars. You could say money has outplayed its role on this planet. It produces greed and corruption through the profit motive we are all a slave to. The economy is falling apart, and everyone seems to be struggling to get richer and richer or just to make ends meet. The financial crisis has so far made over 200 million more people end up in poverty. Now, about 2 billion people in the world are considered poor. Poor countries that have received massive loans from the World Bank have become much poorer after receiving the loans, because of the interest. And they can only hope to pay it back. The collective external debt of all the governments in the world is now about 52 trillion dollars and this number doesnt include the massive amount of household debt in each country. How can we owe each other so much money??? Because we think we need it.

It turns out that its not money we need. We cannot eat money, or build houses with them. What we need is resources. Food, clothing, housing, etc. Money is just a hindrance in making the resources available for everyone. Imagine if there was no money. Right now. No money. Everything would still be there, wouldnt it? The trees, the mountains, the houses, cars, boats, air, grass, snow, rain, sun, animals, birds and bees and the people. Nothing has changed, really. Why? Because money doesnt really exist. Theres no money in nature. Its only an agreement between the worlds people, made up thousands of years ago as a means to control the world population. Instead of slavery, where one had to feed, house, nurse and guard the slaves, one invented money. With money everyone would have to fend for themselves, while the rulers created the currency, collected taxes and controlled the masses, like they do today.

It was a means of which people could trade stuff that they all needed. Labor, food, housing, etc. If it wasnt scarce, there was no need to charge for it. Like water and air. The rulers claimed ownership to land, and thus became the owners of this land. They could then charge others for using it and for stuff that was produced there, like it is today. And the property could be sold and inherited in the bloodline. Banks became invented, and eventually; loans. And now society has become addicted to it, like a drug. But, like a drug, money is something that we dont really need, we only think we do.

Where did the money come from in the first place? In the beginning it was based on rare metals, like gold and silver, and because of its scarcity it could be used as means of trading, instead of cows, hens, corn and other rather-impractical-to-carry-around stuff. Notice the word scarce. Common rock wouldnt have worked, because everyone would have had it. But today. where does the money come from? The answer is..: Nowhere. The money is not even printed anymore. Only 3% of the worlds money is in paper or metal currency, the rest 97% is electronic. New money today is made by the stroke of buttons on computer keyboards, like the one Im typing on now. And this is also how the banks make loans, and wants it payed back, with interest, which is not created in the system, makingbankruptcy inevitable for many companies, and now even countries.

In other words, debt is money. Its like taking a piece of paper, writing 1 million dollars on it, giving it to a poor bastard and say now you owe me 1 million dollars, and you have to pay it back with a yearly interest of 5%, thank you. This is how, in simplicity, it is done. The money today doesnt really exist. Its just an agreement that the whole world has bought into. And now were stuck in it in lack of a better system. Except, now we have a better option, a resource- based economy.

The economy goes up and down in booms and busts. People are getting rich out of nothing, or being struck bankrupt out of the same nothing. In a depression, shops can be full of what people need, but no one has the money to buy it. We are reduced to consumers, even though we are Human Beings. Governments try to control the economy by adjusting the general interest rate and by other means. We have to consume. Not too much, cause then we get inflation and a new economic bubble. But not to little either, then we get a recession because not enough people are buying the products that companies produce. So, its a fine balance. But really, a ridiculous balance. It leads to a lot of trouble for our selves. Overproduction in boom times, underproduction in recession times, pollution, war, corruption, crime, poverty, and withholding of technology because we have to squeeze what we can out of the oil, and other obsolete technology that gives us.money. Still, technology is advancing further and further and replacing jobs faster than we can say technological unemployment, which in itself is increasing year by year, replacing more and more workers by machines.

Machines are both helping us and taking our jobs. Jobs that are needed to get the money to buy things that the technology produces, so that the companies can get more money, to produce more things that you can buy, if you have the money You see? Its a scheme thats set to bust. But money is not what we really need. What we need is what we today believe only money can buy. We need the resources. We need quality of life. Not the money. The truth is that theres not enough money in the world to buy us out of this crisis, or if there was, the money would not be worth much. Since the world economy is based on scarcity, if there is too much money, they wont be worth enough to pay for what we need, the resources. If there is an abundance of money for everyone there would be no value in the money. Still, thats what the world leaders are trying to do today and has been doing for the last 40 years. Growing the economy and printing more money to pour into the system, so that banks can lend out more money, and companies can pay their debt, with more debt, with more money. Money, the thing that created the problem in the first place. The system is doomed for collapse. This is self evident.

Money and false scarcity makes us steal, lie, cheat, become greedy, corrupt and stingy. Actually, all of the worlds governments and people are corrupt, because corruption is a byproduct of money. Since with money, we are all doomed to think profit. Everyone from a single person to a big company. Everyone need to have some form of income. And the income has to come from someone else. Thus, we get greedy, and corrupt and separated from each other and nature, which is our true provider, not money. Its not people that are greedy and corrupt, it is not human nature, its the system that makes people this way. If there were no money, and we could get all we needed and wanted without from nature, technology and each other, there would be no greed, and no corruption. Human nature is by large a product of the environment. With abundance competition becomes obsolete. With abundance there wouldnt be any need to steal. With abundance we could focus on living our lives and develop society. It is about time we end the meaningless competition and start collaborating.

The real human nature is a collaborating one. Think about it. We naturally collaborate to build houses and bridges, develop software and businesses. Collaboration gives satisfaction while competition gives stress. Of course, we could still compete for fun, in games and sport. But when it comes to the development of society we see that competition only hinders progress. A lot of energy and resources is wasted in the pursuit of competing for market share. We dont need 100 different flat screens, we only need one, the best. In a resource-based economy the technological development will have come so far that we can produce anything specially requested by the individual, and in the highest quality, through the use of nanotechnology and computer based manufacturing. This is not science fiction, this technology is being developed now.

What about incentive? I hear you say. Why would people want to do anything, if it wasnt anything in it for them, like money? Well, I sit here now and write this, not because I earn any money on it, but because it gives me something else. The satisfaction of the feeling of helping people, helping society into a new world, that benefits all. And this is a feeling no money can buy. This, I think, is the reason for most of the worlds new inventions, like the radio, the light bulb, electricity, penicillin, etc. etc. Not money, but the need and urge to create and share with other people, and be a part of what is going on. Its no fun keeping all your creations for your self only. The fun lies in sharing with friends, family and the world.

Why do you do anything? I bet you want to do something in your life that you find interesting and fulfilling in some way, not just because you earn money on it. Most people have hobbies and interests that that they like to spend time on, and where no money is made. For many people, this is their reason for living. For many others, they keep their job because it is fulfilling.If it ONLY made you some bucks, or maybe, rich, you would feel really poor in the end. You would realize that money cant buy you happiness. Maybe for a while, but not permanent. So, its not really money that makes you do things, now is it. Its something else. Fulfillment. We all want to be fulfilled in our lives, and even today, money is only a small part of that.

What if you didnt need any money to get all you want today? What if you could get all you think you want today without any money? Travel anywhere you like, drive cool cars (non-polluting ones!), live in a nice place, have this and that new electronic device, go to concerts, eat good food, relax, study what ever you want for as long as you want, work with what you want, contribute to society, learn a new skill, teach a new skill. What would you do? No pursuit for money anymore But you dont need to own the car you drive, or the house you live in, or camera you use, as long as you have access to it as long as you need it.

Say you want to go on a boat trip. What if you could just book a seat on a boat, and go? Or, better yet, book a whole boat, a yacht, if you will, and sail away. It would be pretty boring alone, so you bring some friends along. Good. What about food? All the food you want is provided. So is clothing. And everything else. None of it is really yours, yet all of it is. Its everyones. It wont be like; hey, I need a pair of underwear, give me yours!. Of course not. There would be plenty of underwear, enough for everyone, in enough different colors and shapes. And boats. The beauty of it is that we dont need to own that boat. When were done with it, we return it, so someone else can use it. In a harbor on the opposite side of the globe, or where we picked it up. It doesnt matter. From there we have booked a car, or whatever vehicle we have in RBE, that will take us further on our trip.

Both the boat and the car is produced with the most ease of maintenance and use in mind. And they can maintain themselves in most ways, including taking themselves to a maintenance facility where other machines helps them with what they need. This way we dont need parking lots stuffed full of cars that are not in use, or harbors stuffed full of boats that are just lying there. There would be a good selection of cars and boats for everyone to choose from in many kinds of designs, fitting your taste and personality. And ALL of them would be yours to use! Not just one or two. They are ALL yours, orours.

There would be produced more than enough of all that people would demand, in fully automated factories and on personal 3D printers. And it would be produced to last. Not like today, where cars are actually produced to brake down, so that they can sell more cars, and keep a whole maintenance industry alive. No, in a resource-based economy there would be no point in making anything in poor quality. In a resource-based economy it would be most beneficial for everyone that every product is of the highest possible quality, and that all the planets resources are managed, developed and protected to the highest degree. And when we go by access rather than ownership, we wouldnt need more than a fraction of the amount of cars and boats and things we have today. Since non of the things are in use all the time, and we share the things we have, we, the environment and the planet will do with a lot less things, and a lot less waste, if any.

In the world today there are plenty of resources for everyone, if they are properly managed, that is. The monetary system makes us compete for the resources on the planet. A resource like oil is continually being pumped up because of the money it makes, instead of researching and developing new environmentally friendly energy, thus continuing to pollute the world. There is a lot of alternative development going on, though, but still, the oil is being pumped up to the last drop. And the green energy is also monetized. Streams, made from the rain, made from the evaporated water the sun is responsible for, are running down the mountain, and then the electricity it produces is charged for by the kilowatt-hour. So is the wind, and the tidal power, nuclear power and every other energy source on the planet today. Making the richer richer and the poorer poorer.

It cant go on like this forever. We have two choices. One is where globalization by corporations takes over, we are all chipped and controlled, and become the sheep that feed the never ending hunger of the few. Actually, this is not far from what it is like today. The interest you pay on your loans pays the interest the rich get on their money in the bank. I.e. they dont have to work, but you do.

The other choice is where money is abandoned and the worlds resources are distributed to where it is needed. This distribution is possible with todays technology. We can have a sensor and distribution system covering the whole planet, making it possible to monitor resources, supply and demand all over the world. We already have this system to a large degree, through satellites and other technology. We can also combine this with input from users.

In nature there is a natural abundance. Everything in nature is there for us to use and develop to the best for ourselves and humanity. It is only when the profit motive comes in everything is distorted. Then crops are thrown away because of profit, and land is overused. When we close the door on money and profit, we can easily produce more than enough food for everyone on the planet. When we take one seed from an apple and put it in the ground, we get a whole tree full of apples after a while. And with that we get more than enough seeds to plant more apple trees. And everything is provided for us by nature, all for free. No charge. And not much labour. We plant the seed at the right place and then it grows all by it selves. It only needs water, light, nurturing and time. And voila, we have apples. And this goes for every other plant on the planet as well. Its all there for us to utilize.

The day to day decision making can largely be computerized and be based on need and our input, with highly developed, self maintaining and self producing machines and robots combined with the loving care of humans. If there is a need and want for housing in a particular area, the houses will be built by machines in accordance to the specifications of the future inhabitants. If there is need for more of a particular food, that will be produced and provided. Already today cars can run by themselves only guided by GPS and sensors. Several hospitals use robots for inventory and logistics. Planes have had autopilots for years and can both take off, navigate and land by themselves. Factories produce all kinds of products faster and more efficient than any human being could ever do. Billions of big and small decisions are already taken for us every day by computers.

Still, politicians makes us believe that they know best what is best for us. Even though they havent got a clue about the science behind it, and what is measurable the best solution for society and the environment at any given time. Politics is not in our interest, it is only a smoke screen, made to distract us from what is really important. We can have a world of abundance for absolutely everyone as long as we skip the bickering of politics and really open our eyes for what we really need and how far technology and science has really come. The technological and scientific development has really passed societys values by far, and its time we catch up.

In a resource-based economy there would be no need to hold back on any new invention. No patents would be needed. Every new development that would be in the interest of humanity would be developed and shared as fast as possible. We wouldnt want or need to pollute the world more than absolutely necessary, if necessary at all. We would develop everything in a way that would maximize the quality of life for everyone. Humans, animals, insects, plants and the environment itself. Technology has come so far today that we can make it do almost anything. Technology is not to be feared. Technology is like a knife. It can be used to stab someone to death, or to cut bread. Technology itself is neutral. Its we who gives it its purpose and meaning. And theres no turning back.

Technology has come to stay. Imagine a life without cell phones, video, mp3 players, cameras, internet, satellites, electricity, modern hospitals, washing machines, cars, trains, planes, computers, lamps, running shoes, running water, loud speakers, windows, steel, dvd players, tooth brushes, dental floss, glasses, contact lenses and what have you. A car plant today is almost 100% automated. So are most other factories. Humans are only kept there to give the illusion that jobs are created and maintained. They are not really needed there. The machines can do all the work with todays technology. Humans are really only needed for some supervising. Technology could probably replace 99% of all human labor in a few years if we want that to happen.

This seems like a sad thing for many, but only if you need a job. In a resource-based economy automation is the liberating factor for people. It is so today as well, until the whole economy collapses, that is. Which it will, eventually. And now, imagine what tomorrows technology can do. Its we who creates it, and its we who will decide what it will do. Today, with the monetary system, technology is used for a lot of destructive development, like weapons. The weapons are largely produced to defend or conquer borders and property, two things that will not exist in a resource-based economy. Weapons are the byproduct of money, the monetary system. War is one of the most profitable activities on this planet. The monetary system produces war, and makes technology to be used destructively. In a resource-based economy with no money, barter, exchange, borders or passports, there would be no reason to produce weapons to defend borders and kill people for property and profit.

We are foreseeing a new worldwide social system where the worlds resources are considered the heritage of all the inhabitants of this planet. A new moneyless society with a resource-based macro economy and a gift micro economy. Imagine a world without money, barter or exchange of any kind, where everything is provided for and shared by everyone. Not uniformity, but individual freedom and expression will be its credo. True unity through diversity, and abundance for all would be its goal. And for ever openness to change and development its reality. Its not utopia, its just a new possible direction for society. No debt, loans,taxes, money, bills, accounting, laws, war, borders, passports, scarcity, stocks, financial crisis, poverty, corruption or hunger. But rather freedom, ingenuity, creativity, positive development, peace, love & understanding (yeah, yeah, cliche, but its true!), personal individual expression, abundance, prosperity, sharing and giving and true Unity for all the worlds people. Call it a dream, call it utopia, call it wonderland, or call it Evolution. This might just be the next step in the development of society.

Yes, the resource-based economy poses a million new questions, its not an easy fix. But its better than what we have. For the first time in history we have the possibility to communicate and collaborate across the planet and develop something that can really change the world. We could actually have a resource based gift economytoday, if everyone simply stopped using money.

We need all kinds of people from all over the world to help imagine and develop this new direction for Humanity together. Everyone from artists to scientists, executives to politicians, organizations to corporations and from citizens to governments. We need EVERYONE onboard on this flight. There is no us and them anymore. We are all in this boat together.

RBE was first brought up by Jacque Fresco with The Venus Project, started in Venus, Florida, USA. It was taken further by Peter Joseph through the Zeitgeist Movement. Zeitgeist means the spirit of the times. The Zeitgeist Movement is not a political or religious movement, but rather a grassroots movement for applied spirituality. Meaning that we seek to implement on this planet the core values of all the worlds religions and spiritual movements, like Oneness, unity, equality and freedom for all people. True freedom can only come when we see all people on this planet as the righteous, equal members of humanity, with equal access to all the planets resources. For this world to exist we have to update our values and views on life and how it can be.

Read and find out more here:

UBUNTU Contributionism

http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com

http://www.thevenusproject.com

Check also all the links the links page.

We need everyone to know about this new possibility for Humanity.

Heres a list of suggestions to what you can do:

Tell your friends. Send them to this page for an initial introduction. You can use the save/share button below to post on Facebook etc.

Write in blogs and forums.

Write articles and send to media (newspapers, magazines, radio, television, internet) in all countries. Feel free to copy and use as much as the above article as you like. Get celebrities to support the movement.

Get the support of investors, companies and corporations. Dont rule this out, we all work with or for someone, and we are all trapped and want to get out, even corporate executives. There are also many investors that actually want to create betterment for Humanity.

Get the support of politicians. Give them a chance, some might get it.

Start more websites about the resource-based economy. The more we populate the web with it, the faster the message will get out.

Involve yourself in the Zeitgeist movement.

We allow and encourage respectful duplication of this information. Respectful means referencing this source. Thank you.

More here:

About RBE | THE RESOURCE BASED abundance ECONOMY