One Finite Planet

The G20 outcome, a plan to make the earth a worse place?

The recent G20 wrapped up with a commitment to target economic growth level for the G20 of 2.1% by 2018.

Global population grwoth is over 1.1% so this means the worlds richest countries will be getting richer by just over 1% avove population increase per annum by 2018.  Is there any suggestion that this addional wealth to the richest will be distributed to the poorer? No.

In fact there is not really a plan to have this additional wealth distributed internally in each rich nation.  For reference, see this bloomberg article:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-02/top-1-got-93-of-income-growth-as-rich-poor-gap-widened.html

In other words, most of the 2.2% over the entire economy will be distributed to the richest 20% (5% in the article, but lets be conservative any allow for things to get radically better) leaving significantly less than 1/4 of the amount to provide growth for most people.

In other words, the net wealth of most people in G20 nations will decline within the target period, but the rich will make real gains.

Of course the G20 is a meeting of governements, and governments tax the entire population so they WILL get 2.1% increase. In fact, the more the increase wealth is skewed to be earned by the rich, since the rich pay higher percentage taxes, the better for governements.

So we have a target that sees the richest governents, and the richest people within the countries with the richest governments, have increased wealth at the expense of most citizens of these G20 nations.

But wait, the truth is when you put it in perspective, it is actually worse than that.  This is a plan of the richest governements to manage their own wealth and totally ignore what happens to the poorest nations, who, let face it, are the ones who most need an increase in wealth.

Imange the news coverage for a conference in your country where on the rich could attend that was designed to purely increase the wealth of those rich attending.  Would it receive positve press?  Isn’t this the same simply on a global scale?

Comment?

Table of Contents

Categories

Ghost cities and ghost homes: housing finance crisis?

Anyone who believes in indefinite growth in anything physical, on a physically finite planet, is either mad or an economist.”

Attributed to Kenneth Boulding in: United States. Congress. House (1973) 

This applies to not just to population growth, but just maybe also to the growth in value of housing.

This page is a look at ‘ghost cities’ and ‘ghost homes’, and the window they provide into how distorted investment can become in the pursuit of growth.

The end result of the distortions can be overvalued assets funded by highly leveraged ordinary citizens. If that is the case, not just with ghost cities but beyond, the correction will clearly present a financial crisis.

Read More »

The EV climate change lag problem: Don’t buy an EV just to save the planet.

The bad news is EVs won’t help in time to keep global warming below +2.0oC, or reduce emissions in the critical years up to 2040. The EV transition means things still get worse before they get better, until late as 2050. The problem is not the ‘long tailpipe argument‘, but the challenge of the transition to EVs. EVs do, over their lifetime, result in a reduction in emissions, but the whole process can take decades, does not alone solve immediate climate problem. Emissions can even be worse if too many people buy EVs too soon.

Read More »

Big Oil, AKA Big Fossil: How real, and what about ‘big climate’?

It is clear that significant funding is directed to promoting the continued use of fossil fuel.

Time after time I find the need to make this claim, and as I do not make claims without supporting evidence, so each time it triggers a search for supporting evidence.

I have now decided to create a page with links to supporting evidence, as an improving over multiple pages each linking directly to one or two pieces of the puzzle.

For balance, I examine the idea of ‘big climate’ or ‘big science’, being a source of funding bias data applied against the arguments of ‘big oil’.

Read More »

Can Peter Dutton repair the democracy ‘loyal opposition’.

Democracy is under threat, and a significant part of the problem stems for the distortion of the current model of ‘opposition’. While the politics of division and polarisation of the USA Trump republicans vs Biden democrats attracts most attention on the world stage right now, what happens in Australia following the recent election which saw democracy strike back (page coming soon), has the potential to provide the world with an alternate blueprint for the role of the opposition party, which could reinvigorate democracy and spread to the US and elsewhere.

Is there an alternative to the current Republicans vs Democrats style, where ‘opposition’ is about each party demonising the other?

Read More »

the surprises hiding in life expectancy numbers.

The main surprise is that life expectancy reveals very little about how long people typically live. From the 1500s till around 1800, life expectancy throughout Europe hovered between 30 and 40 years of age, and it was only as recent as the 20th century, that life expectancy rose from 49.2 to 80.3 years. Yet famous historical figures from 2,000 years ago, typically lived to around 70 or longer.

Looking far back as we can know, a full lifespan has always been around 70 years or longer. The biggest change has not the length of a human lifespan, but instead, the dramatic increase in percentage of people who get to enjoy that lifespan. How ancient people lived was nothing like life expectancy suggests, and we have not yet extended lifespans to the extent you may think.

Read More »