One Finite Planet

One Finite Planet

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:

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?

Table of Contents


Flawed Australian voice of Indigenous People referendum: The irony of a voice campaign that failed to listen.

A tragic lost opportunity. Why didn’t those proposing the voice make changes to remove ambiguity and eliminated enough of the negative perception to win over enough support instead of simply declaring” “No, if that is how you see it you are either racist or stupid!” Was it just that there was no willingness to listen?

Australians had an opportunity in a constitutional referendum to righteously shout loudly “I am not a racist” by voting for a proposition that, at its core, could be seen as fundamentally flawed, divisive and even potentially racist, in the hope even a risk of moving in the direction of apartheid is still better than nothing.

The referendum resulted in a huge setback for action on indigenous disadvantage and while it did seem unlikely to do anything to unify Australians and offer more than some possible affirmative action, the division resulted with even sometimes “yes” voters being encouraged to also be racist.

This is a deeper look trying to see each side from the perspective of the other, with the reality that both sides had a point, and a vast majority of people do want equality and unity.

Perhaps it little more work could bring things together and offer a fresh enough perspective to move beyond just another well-intentioned patronising racism failure like the stolen generations?

Read More »

Environment: On all paths, disruption is imminent & preparation advisable.

Either we disrupt the economic system of a gradual path to transition from fossil fuels, extreme weather disrupts us, or most likely we deal with a mix of both disruptions.

We are living through many trends that simply cannot continue, and while there is competition for which trend reaching a tipping point will cause the greatest disruption over the next decade, the environment and rising CO2 levels will play a key role by 2030.

While some righteous environmentalists protest for everyone to embrace austerity and simply just stop burning fossil fuels, what is required is replacement infrastructure reliant on fossil fuels. In practice we can’t switch off until positive action replaces the need for fossil fuels, which is progressing too slowly in a failing effort to avoid disrupting economies and the establishment.

Reality is both the extreme weather events that further motivate action and those actions themselves will cause disruption, which will both combine with the disruption from AI and the collapse of economic Ponzi schemes.

Read More »

Population: Our greatest achievement may cause our demise.

Arguably mankind’s greatest achievement, the near eradication of infant mortality, has resulted in a population explosion resulting in overpopulation that we prefer not to mention, even though it may yet kill us. Technically we would not die from overpopulation itself, just as people don’t really die from “old age”, and the real risk is that an already present threat will be exacerbated and become fatal because through our greed we ignore overpopulation.

Unlike old age, the overpopulation risk factor could be avoided or reversed, we may be influenced by economists dependant on Ponzi schemes, the worlds’ largest corporations and billionaires who thrive off the resultant increases in inequality into believing that living conditions required by ever increasing population levels benefit everyone and not just those living in mansions.

Read More »

Cost of coal power vs renewables: China expanding coal while the suckers go green?

If coal fired power can no longer compete on price, then why is China building two new coal power plants per week? Is China somehow able to use coal fired electricity to gain a competitive advantage against western manufacturing which increasingly relies on “clean green” but more expensive energy, with the result that emissions and jobs are simply transferred to China?

The current politics of climate agreements encourage rich countries to offshore some emissions to those countries often forced to be more reliant coal and with higher emissions. Could we fix the problem of China syndrome emissions if there was the political will?

Read More »

Righteous environmentalism: an opium for the people concerned about climate.

There is a real need to protect the environment, and advocacy for the environment is great, but that advocacy can acquire traits of a religion, which at the extreme can even result in far-right eco-terrorism, and more in the mainstream can result in righteous environmentalism and embracing austerity and sacrifices as “an opium”.

The “righteous environmentalists” preach this austerity as necessary life of the future to an audience that just see the rich becoming even richer. This blindly serves an alternate agenda and needlessly alienates and disenfranchises much of the population. The result is do-nothing politicians to get re-elected instead of motivating voters for real action on climate change and electing leaders who will act.

Read More »