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

Date Published:

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?

[TheChamp-Sharing]
[TheChamp-FB-Comments]

Table of Contents

Categories

Population on a Finite World: A zero-sum game with no vacancies.

From childhood I had assumed human population was growing because the world was not yet fully populated and life was still expanding, but reality is most the recent “garden of Eden scenario” occurred over 500 million years ago, and since then the planet has been fully occupied with a total biosphere of life in fact gradually shrinking. It turns out that no species on Earth can keep increasing population without quicky on geological timescales reaching its population limit.

How has the human population kept growing if we have long been at our limit? By raising our limit through accessorised evolution and in turn lowering the environmental limits of other species. We have been, by the same principle of evolution Darwin declared “survival of the fittest” that allows new species to arise and grow their populations, competition from humans has been partially or fully “evicting” other species from their environmental niches. While when there were less humans this had little impact, it has now reached a scale labelled the Anthropocene where, if the human population continues to evolve and grow, other species face decline or face extinction.

Read More »

Base load Solar and Wind: Renewables alone not a substitute for fossil fuels.

At least, not a direct substitute. Solar and Wind have proven to be successful partial cost-effective substitutes for fossil fuels, but fossil fuels are stored energy, and solar and wind are not. Renewables are a disruption, and disruptions are usually not one-for-one substitutions.

There are two strategies for replacing fossil fuels in the grid, and they can be used together:

  • 1: Add energy storage for when renewable energy levels fall below a threshold.
  • 2: Base load “solar and wind”: Design to provide base load at a low threshold of wind and light.

Without such strategies, it is impossible to reach the goal of removing reliance on fossil fuels. With the right strategy, it is possible to realise benefits go far beyond just replacement.

Read More »

We can’t run out of fossil fuels.

In the 1970s, there were the ‘Oil Crises‘. Then, and at other times it has been suggested that one key reason for moving to renewables, is that as there is only a finite supply of fossil fuels which will come to an end one day. But when?

There is also a mistaken belief that ‘peak oil‘ projections are a result of supplies of fossil fuels becoming exhausted.

Whether you are worried oil supplies will run out, or are hoping oil supplies will run out, although prices may rise, they won’t run out. In fact, we can’t possibly use all fossil fuel.

Read More »

Discover more from One Finite Planet

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading