Today’s post is by regular contributor, Richard Jurin. Before his retirement, Richard led the Environmental Studies programme at the University of Northern Colorado, where he launched a degree in Sustainability Studies. His academic interests are environmental worldviews and understanding barriers to sustainability. As ever, with our blogs, the views expressed are not necessarily shared by NAEE.
Several countries, typically the Scandinavian ones, have prioritized people and planet, and to their credit, regularly rank high globally as the ‘happiest’ countries. But while they typically tend to be much more ‘environmentally green,’ are no closer to abating ecological problems since their economies are still tied to the same global economic systems that are perpetuating the problems. For everyone globally to live like these Scandinavian countries – hyper-consumptive – their lifestyle is still impossible to sustain. They have gotten some things right: they have cultures that foster strong social safety nets, which reduce inequality and stress from life’s uncertainties; High-quality public education that empowers people with opportunities and stability, and; a high level of active environmental care, giving some good attributes of quality of life – trust, fairness, and belonging (e.g., community coherence).
Returning to the metrics of Bhutan’s Gross National Happiness (vid, my last post), we see that Scandinavian countries do well on several of the Bhutanese metrics for a better quality of life, but fail on several of those metrics that ensure a more sustainable path. Compared to many other developed nations, these countries do better on psychological health; better organic farming practices and renewable energy production; more emphasis on education systems that allow them the time to express themselves more authentically; and, better community coherence when it relates to their own cultural background. Where they fail, is placing too-high an emphasis on living standards that produce more stress on the environment; a reluctance to embrace cultural diversity that diminishes social resilience; political systems that are as complex and corrupt as any in the developed world; and, an almost schizoid approach to technological advancement that on one hand helps ecological well-being, but on the other hand embraces the economic dysfunction that is leading the planet on the road to perdition. Small populations with more mindful living approaches and high levels of natural resources are the only things preventing these Scandinavian countries from the myriad forms of ecological collapse currently seen in many other countries around the world.
All new metrics must be focused specifically on restoration of Ecosystem Services for both human and ecological welfare. They must be framed from ethical and moral imperatives. In the current global market-economic system, this is practically impossible, and completely so from the hierarchical perspective. Looking to hierarchical authorities for any solutions is a fool’s errand. The change will only come when we at the local level use new metrics for success that do not rely on economic profit as a meaningful measure of success. Only people who value their communities will act in their own best interests, and only then will economics as envisioned by Adam Smith, develop where total transparency and socio-ecological benefit are the primary metrics of success.
A few years ago, I was in the northern highlands of Scotland. In a discussion about sustainable land-use problems, I casually mentioned the historic ‘enclosures’ period. The reaction I got made it clear that the legally sanctioned loss of the ‘commons’ from the mid-1500s through the late-1800s was still not forgotten. A quick look at ‘Parliamentary Enclosure Acts’ shows that the British Parliament enacted well over 5000 individual acts, enclosing public lands in England, Wales and Scotland. The Enclosure Acts allowed for the privatization and consolidation of common land (that previously all could use) into legal property rights for wealthy landowners. This was done under the guise of creating agricultural efficiency for better profit generation (not more food, although that was always a given reason at the time).
In travelling around and interviewing several communities within the CADISPA project that the Late Geoff Fagan had established, one common aspect became clear. They wanted autonomy away from the Scottish government. They recognized their isolation and wanted to explore ways to thrive sustainably and differently from the traditional urban growth models. The rigid bureaucracy of a centralized government was seen as intrusive to what they wanted. These communities are too sparse to garner significant interest from mega-corporate entities, and so are freer to determine what kinds of commerce are beneficial and sustainable to all members of their community. They have literally pushed into being more localized. Yet, exploitive commercial interests are still prevalent in destroying local cottage industries that traditionally sustained their communities in the past.
These communities are faced now with conditions that will soon be on all of us. In measuring what will determine success for their communities, most have preferred to use businesses that are more like transformative B-corporations, that legally commit and demonstrate high social and environmental performance with transparency. This eliminates the ‘Walmart Effect’ and puts control back into local hands, which can use emotional intelligence and wisdom to determine their future paths. While the last two years have seen major changes, The Findhorn Foundation and intentional community still offer a unique model for community liberation.
To Be Continued …………
Richard can be contacted at: richardjurin@gmail.com