Renewable energy - problem or potential

The earthquake outside Japan has got me thinking about genuinly clean and renewable energy sources. Regardless of your view on the risks of meltdowns in the Japanese powerplants, it should be obvious that nuclear powerplants aren't entirely safe - not to mention the dangers of uranium mining and disposal of nuclear waste. In addition to being environmentally hazardous, nuclear power - just as fossil power - is finite, localized and therefore controllable. As has been shown through numerous national and international conflicts, non-renewable energy is a constant potential source for geo-political strife and tension - but I believe it is also an obstacle we need to overcome if we are to achieve economic, social and ecological sustainability. There are also parallels with problems surrounding "intellectual property rights", the impact of mp3 technology on the music industry and WikiLeaks.

The dangers of polarization

Last year, The Spirit Level by Richard G. Wilkinson and Kate Pickett made some (although not enough) impact on the Swedish pre-election debates and campaigns. About 6 months earlier, Tim Jackson's report Prosperity Without Growth surfaced as well, regrettably without making almost any noise over here. In April of last year, the Gulf of Mexico was hit by disaster on a major scale with the BP oil spill, and for half a century there's been an on-going oil spill - dwarfing what happened in the Gulf - in the Niger Delta. Add to this a massive global financial crisis, two Iraq wars, the Afghanistan invasion, the Darfur genocide in Sudan and countless other catastrophies as well as a global climate change escalating out of control. At the same time, we are witnessing a severe social, economic and political polarization. This all ties together.

A sustainable labour market

The labour market, and also labour market policies, today aren't really working. In many (Western) countries, unemployment rates are rising, there is a worrying shift in demographics where it seems a shrinking work force are required to provide services (as well as taxed labour) to an growing number of retirees, increased automatization as well as relocation ("outsourcing") of jobs are removing work opportunities. At the same time, overtime is increasing (and recently the government has even suggested that it become easier to order overtime), the wage gap between low and high income jobs increases, and cheap oil - a prerequisite for much of the aformentioned automatization - seem to be becoming a thing of the past.

The Growth Dogma

Just read an article in Swedish magazine Effekt about the connection between what's happening in the Middle East and the currently dominating "growth dogma". In short, the writer suggests that world leaders are hesitant to support the people of the Middle East in their uprising, because this might lead to a severe rise in oil prices - and that rising oil prises, while being a potential problem for households, is a major problem for an economy based on eternal economic growth. Our current economy essentially runs on access to cheap oil. One question posed in the article is why the issue of growth (or rather, the critique of our current "growth dogma") is so taboo. I have some thoughts.

Better for whom?

It is a commonly held misconception that we need to pursue further advances within the field of genetically modified crops and livestock in order to come to terms with the problem of feeding an ever growing human population. Beside the obvious - we have no idea what the effects of these genetically modified organisms are on the local and global ecosystems - this argument fails to acknowledge the real problem, which is one of distribution of resources and, consequently, power.

Det finns ingen "miljöetik"

"Miljöetik" finns inte. Det låter kanske märkligt, särskilt när det kommer från en miljöpartist. Men miljöfrågorna är inte etiska frågor annat än i den mest triviala betydelsen. Etik handlar om att göra val, avvägningar och prioriteringar utifrån en uppfattning om "det goda". En etisk teori ger svar på frågan "hur bör jag agera i den här situationen?". Miljöfrågor handlar inte om hur vi bör agera i en given situation, utan om hur vi kan agera. De ger oss inget utrymme att välja. Vår miljö är inte något vi kan ha en uppfattning om, den är förutsättningen för våra uppfattningar.

Hållbar arbetsmarknadspolitik

Att höstens val tycks handla om jobben är inget vågat påstående. Men frågan är inte om vi ska ha jobb eller bidrag, som alliansen vill göra gällande, utan om vilken typ av jobb vi vill se och hur vi tänker oss att de skapas. I grund och botten handlar det om synen på människan, samhället och det ekosystem som vi alla är en del av.

De onödiga, undervärderade och framtida jobben

"Jobbar vi i onödan?" är en fråga som sociologen Roland Paulsen från Uppsala universitet ställer sig i en ny bok, och som dryftas i en intervju i torsdagens SvD. Det är en intressant och tankeväckande fråga, som jag skrivit om tidigare (den gången på engelska). Enligt Paulsen har vi idag en hel del jobb som sysselsätter för många, utförs i onödan eller rentav är skadliga. Ny teknik och nya uppfinningar har gjort att vi är mer effektiva, men vi jobbar (minst) lika mycket idag som vi gjorde förr.

Oljesjukan

För ovanlighetens skull läser jag idag en krönika som inte är helt uppåt väggarna av Wolodarski i DN. Han skriver om "oljesjukan", att "ett land med gott om olja förvandlas lätt till ett slagfält om resurser, där kampen om tillgångarna suger musten ur samhällets produktiva krafter".Visserligen missar han den stora poängen i sin utgångspunkt, men det vore varken Wolodarski eller DN annars.

It's not perfect, but it's the best we've got...

...is a common argument when it comes to democracy. It has also been used with regards to nuclear power and our current capitalist, growth-centered regime. The problem, however, is that the comparison halters.

More with less, not less with more

It is fairly obvious to anyone not suffering from a severe case of cognitive dissonance that our current policy of infinite economic growth is utterly unsustainable. We "borrow" from future generations at a rate which we won't be able to pay back (we might even have crossed the line already). Infinite economic growth based on finite resources can only lead to an ever increasing allocation of resources in the hands of an ever shrinking number of people. Getting out of this infinite economic growth is difficult, I personally don't know how it can be done, I'd probably be a Nobel laureate if I did. But that doesn't change the fact that we must get out of it.

Balancing an ever-increasing economic growth

Yesterday I woke up with the question "how do we balance ever-increasing growth?" in my head. I thought this was interesting, especially since it was expressed verbally in English and English isn't my native language. Not too strange though, since these are thoughts that have been flying around in my head for quite some time. I'll figure I'll take the idea and run with it, see where it leads.