{"id":2683,"date":"2013-12-05T19:22:05","date_gmt":"2013-12-06T00:22:05","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/synapse9.com\/signals\/?p=2683"},"modified":"2013-12-05T20:06:16","modified_gmt":"2013-12-06T01:06:16","slug":"un-owg5-missing-topics","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/synapse9.com\/signals\/un-owg5-missing-topics\/","title":{"rendered":"UN OWG-5 statements – SDG’s missing some signals"},"content":{"rendered":"

Last week was unusually successful for me at the UN, or felt that way. \u00a0 The increasing openness of the process, and my good luck in finding socially\u00a0acceptable ways to stay it, both helped me. \u00a0So I was able to bring small flashes of light to the deeper kinds of issues about “What to Do with the Earth”<\/span> that the UN is continuing to expand it’s discussion of,..<\/i><\/p>\n

toward defining the world’s “Sustainable Development Goals” \u00a0 <\/i><\/h4>\n

It’s really an amazingly broad discussion of every aspect of how the “world we want” should work, a truly impressive effort, well, of course still leaving out the things that we are culturally blind to and at the same time feverishly\u00a0looking for to save our necks in a terrible\u00a0situation\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Here are three of my statements for OWG-5, and\u00a0capsule\u00a0assessment of the UN’s Technical Support Team briefs for OWG-6 for framing everyones terms of discussion for the issues.<\/i><\/p>\n

\"\"
Yes, but can we REALLY now have energy and equity for all?<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
    \n
      \n
        \n
          \n
            \n
          1. Macroeconomics – of ever increasing inequity<\/li>\n
          2. More Energy – for ever growing demand<\/li>\n
          3. Mismatched measure – impacts missing from responsibilities<\/li>\n
          4. Using the economy’s own steering not mentioned<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/ol>\n<\/ol>\n<\/ol>\n<\/ol>\n

            _______________<\/p>\n

            1. \u00a0OWG5<\/strong> Scheduled 11\/25\u00a0intervention<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>Macroeconomic Policy\u00a0<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0(circulated)\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

            Promoting growth at the limits creates severe increasing, not decreasing, inequities<\/h3>\n

            The great variety of urgent SDG\u2019s being discussed are truly desirable, but can only be somehow addresses together.<\/p>\n

            Monday morning Bernbadette Fischler offered a model that seems consistent with cost estimates for doing all this, that the SDG\u2019s might for a period cost 2% of the income of the over developed economies to kick start the growth of the underdeveloped economies.<\/p>\n

            Say that worked. We\u2019d then have 100% of world population using modern technology, adding their earnings to their investments to drive more growth, and so ever increasing competition over the earth\u2019s shrinking resources too, adding even more strain on both people and planetary boundaries.<\/p>\n

            So we\u2019d still have a winners and losers game in which everyone is a loser, and so still need a new paradigm.<\/p>\n

            A comprehensive approach to investment decision making would not just count profits but also liabilities, in financial terms, using monetized business ESG balance sheets, in combination with normal financial balance sheets. Then everyone will see the real societal financial costs of making money today, that present or even past investors might be held responsible for.<\/p>\n

            Some will be direct liabilities, like Superfund cleanup costs. A realistic estimate of liability for bio-char to sequester CO2 until production declines, would presently be around 10%-20% of GDP. We should know that\u2019s a cost we are incurring, when delaying action or making new investments using fossil fuels.<\/p>\n

            The comprehensive approach would imply investors have a fiduciary duty to make decisions to care for the environments and communities their profits come from, and can no longer profit at everyone else\u2019s expense. It\u2019s a commons view, proposing an SDG to \u201chave the world work well as a whole\u201d.<\/p>\n

            It would change our economic model to result in high profit low strain economies of a sustainable scale.<\/h3>\n

            This is a commons view,
            \nproposing an SDG for having the world work as a whole.<\/h3>\n

            We would switch from driving ever growing competition to sustaining productive competition, basic homemaking a world economy, and making the earth a good home.<\/p>\n

            __________<\/p>\n

            2. \u00a0 OWG5<\/strong> Major Groups AM session Wednesday, on Energy and Environment<\/strong><\/span> (222 words)<\/p>\n

            With the success of the SDG\u2019s our economic model would still generate ever growing energy demand<\/h3>\n

            We have a deep problem in treating energy as a supply problem, when it comes from the limitlessly growing demand model of our economy.\u00a0 \u00a0Not discussing that deep misunderstanding of the problem shows that the whole SDG discussion, however laudable many of the goals seem to be, is really not honestly looking at consequences.\u00a0\u00a0 The world data is\u00a0 completely clear that growth uses proportional resources, it\u2019s only the individual investment plans based on the models of the past and loose accounting of externalities that see no horizon to that, of our doubling our use of energy every 30 years double our rate of changing the earth and push all its boundaries ever harder.<\/p>\n

            There will be quite unavoidable major backfire effects for following that model of the past, and unavoidable future attempts at claw backs to pay for the disaster of misdirection our present plan calls for.<\/p>\n

            Alternately<\/p>\n

            We could choose to take care for the world we built \u2013
            \nmaking the earth a good home,\u00a0rather than repeat our error
            \nof building and using ever more we can\u2019t take care of.<\/h3>\n

            I\u2019ve done lots of study of that option over the past 30 years of developing new scientific methods for understanding it and the options available.<\/p>\n

            What the science community has yet to see its self interest in clarifying for the world<\/p>\n

            _____________<\/p>\n

            3. OWG5 intercessional<\/strong> with Stefan Schweinfest of UN statistical group<\/strong><\/span>, Follow-up<\/p>\n

            A Mismatch between measures of impacts and responsibilities<\/h3>\n

            It was a great pleasure to briefly chat with you at your lunchtime presentation in OWG5 on last Wednesday (I think it was).\u00a0\u00a0 I passed you my brief one page poster on the core problem, http:\/\/synapse9.com\/signals\/2013\/11\/19\/mismatch-of-impacts-n-responsibilities\/<\/a>, and joked with you about your “new flexibility” in finding a need for new kinds of statistical solutions.<\/p>\n

            The core problem I need to help you work on is twofold.\u00a0\u00a0 First, the **untraceable responsibilities** of business for **known environmental impacts** are not being accounted for, as far as I know, by any of the present common metrics being used.\u00a0\u00a0 That oversight actually makes all such units of measure scientifically undefined.\u00a0 That’s a big huge scientific problem, not knowing what your measures measure.<\/p>\n

            Second, when accounted for, the untraceable responsibilities turn out generally **much larger than the traceable ones** (with some exceptions) so you really can’t draw any solid information from the measures, even to compare one to another, and particularly not financial responsibilities.<\/p>\n

            I think where it goes is toward developing a more comprehensive business balance sheet.\u00a0 It would fairly and reasonably attribute responsibility for all impacts (both traceable and untraceable) to combine business financial accounts with monetized ESG impact accounts.\u00a0\u00a0 Then investors, consumers, businesses and regulators can all see clearly the societal liabilities being incurred by every business’s way of making a profit, which investors and businesses might well be held accountable for in the future.<\/p>\n

            \u00a0____________<\/p>\n

            4. OWG6<\/strong> – Comments on Technical Support Team (TST) issues briefs<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

            Neglect mentioning the normal forces that \u00a0steer economies\u2026
            \nand so also how we\u2019d need to use them.<\/h3>\n

            What really steers economies are<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

            – investors<\/span><\/b> <\/b>making choices for what to the economy should build for its future,<\/p>\n