Sustainable Energy and Economic Development

In recent years, governments are becoming increasingly reliant on market forces to allocate material, human, and financial resources for the selection energy sources for electricity generation. Many nations are privatizing formerly government-owned utilities to introduce an element of competition that can lead to greater efficiency, lower electricity rates, and attract private capital.

Governments are moving toward new regulatory frameworks for making rules and monitoring the application of those rules to ensure that markets work efficiently while, at the same time, advancing social causes. There is an increased globalization of corporate activity, flow of information by modern means, and increased awareness of people. With a growing recognition of the failure of bureaucracies to provide the fundamental necessities of society, the world is moving from centralized planning by bureaucratic elites to more regionalized or localized planning. This fundamental change in the decision-making process is reshaping the future world of energy suppliers and providing a major incentive for adopting sustainable energy resources.

For economic development to take place, something has to be done for the one-third of humanity who struggles to survive without electricity, relying primarily on biomass for heating and cooking. For the many developing nations with no domestic sources of oil and, negative trade balances, the days of recycling petrodollars are at an end. In the past, bank deposits by oil producers were lent out to developing nations to but petroleum. This was a good deal for buyers, who used the loan proceeds to purchase petroleum products, and for suppliers, who received cash for their oil.

The cash from these sales was again places on deposit in banks for another round of petrodollar recycling. Having taken a loss with past 'petro-loans', banks presumably will not be overly eager to enter into new ones. Without being able to borrow petrodollars to fund their purchases of oil, what are the many developing nations without domestic oil reserves and with a negative trade balance to do?

Economic development centered on electricity is the only way to alleviate extreme levels of poverty in areas where human efforts are primarily dedicated to collecting dung, wood, and water. Furthermore, electricity, through communications, increases the awareness of people of the world around them and, through education and training, raises the knowledge level and technical skills of the people, making them better able to help themselves. For every hundred new houses built with electricity, there are about ten or more new businesses that will open. Electricity frees up time from performing domestic chores and provides the power for efficient and reliable manufacturing of goods to meet the basic necessities of life.

Sustainable Energy is coming into its own, partly as a result of decentralization, which allows local people to become more involved with the decision-making process. Also, the price of fossil fuels is making people take a hard look at alternatives. Sustainable energy is now being viewed as a means of mitigating the risk of oil supply disruption, fossil fuel price hikes, and the environmental impact of increased carbon dioxide emissions. Thus, the higher cost of sustainable energy can be rationalized as an insurance premium against the risk of economic turmoil stemming from interruptions in oil flows, price hikes, and climatic change.

For environmental sustainability, it is important to reduce consumption, not substitute oil and gas with renewable sources. Encouraging conservation and enhancing energy efficiency is a starting point to a long-term plan, which will hopefully and eventually ease our dependency on oil.

If you are interested in articles about sustainable domestic energy, see Heartland Energy Colorado
For more articles from this author about varying topics, check out Denver SEO.

Will Barack Obama Tread the Torturous Path to a Sustainable New World Order?

According to a report published by the World Wildlife Fund and the Global Footprint Network: "Humans are stripping nature at an unprecedented rate and will need two planets' worth of natural resources every year by 2050 if current trends continue."

WWF Director-General James Leape said: "For more than 20 years we have exceeded the Earth's ability to support a consumptive lifestyle that is unsustainable and we cannot afford to continue down this path." He continued: "If everyone around the world lived as those in America, we would need five planets to support us."

In part of Barack Obama's acceptance speech he said: "And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as president: in 10 years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East." It will be interesting to observe just how much Mr Obama offers in greenhouse gas goals and aid to assist developing countries to help achieve this.

But it needs to go far further and deeper than independence from oil. Economic perceptions about how we organise our lives have taken generations to formulate, with consumerism and growth the very heart of our beloved capitalism system; it is on everyone lips in almost every word they utter when referring to a country or region's success. If this is to change, and it must, it is a colossal challenge to meet. This massive environmental clean-up cannot be taken on by Mr Obama's new administration alone but it can drive the new agenda forward; an agenda that is sustainable, renewable and intelligent.

The old order had this to say about its willful neglect, not only of the economy but, more importantly, the environment: On 12 May 2008 in Washington, DC George W. Bush announced: "I'll be long gone before some smart person ever figures out what happened inside this Oval Office." Or didn't happen, more to the point.

America has for years refused to co-operate with urgent calls to tackle global warming. With the new president this cannot be allowed to continue. But if we're going to blame the Republican Party for deregulating the economy and neglecting environmental issues, we should also point the finger of blame across the entire spectrum of world leaders and bankers.

In a recent cover story in The Economist they wrote: "Global finance is being torn apart; it can be put back to together again." Really? But surely, if global capitalism's flaws have just driven the world into this financial cul-de-sac, then why reconstitute the model, albeit with more responsible, transparent protection?

Their argument seems to be that with the world's largest investment banks and insurance companies, most now in the hands of receivers, merged or bailed out, and with recessions and redundancies about to change the face of the world forever, they accuse systemic institutional failures to regulate sub-prime mortgages as the cause of the meltdown. They then went on to suggest that, don't worry, Humpty Dumpty will be put together again any time soonish.

The Economist contends that even though America's (and for that matter everyone else's) fragmented system of oversight, lack of transparency and accounting methods, which factors in values risk, has caused the greatest recession since World War II, the system is sound enough to withstand a new Depression.

Maybe it can, but what controls have been put in place and what government dare tussle with the remaining super-banks? The onus of risk now seems to have shifted to the unsuspecting taxpayer. In Britain, trust has been completely scuppered by a bailout by the people on behalf of the banking system which has kindly responded by a declaration that interest rate cuts will not be passed down to the people. So much for fair play in the world of bonuses-first banking.

The question is should the world slither back up the greasy pole of capitalism as it was, the system that righteously declared itself the victor over communism at the close of the cold war, or do we look for a deeper understanding, realise its faults and then add other ingredients into the mix? The time is ripe for environmentalism to be added into a new economic paradigm, one that goes hand-in-hand with global responsibility and our very survival.

Existing accounting models across the globe are very fickle about what they call 'procyclicality', meaning transparent and immediate write-downs of toxic assets on a company's books. But what if the accounting methods in the new paradigm were to factor in environmental cost and waste, and penned into the ledgers of these vast corporations? That is only fair, for if not it would be like having HIV and not informing your partner. Morally, that's an abomination; having toxic assets, and worse, toxic products hidden from your investors apparently isn't. It should be. And so shouldn't a company's green mission statement also be available, transparent and immediate? And shouldn't harmful environmental fallout resulting from the means of production be available too, and penalised?

It is said that the years ahead will be much harsher than they were before, both in the realms of finance, the environment and our way of life. Now the former has failed us the system needs to be re-modelled with environmental sustainability built into it. Today there is limited finance available, trillions of dollars of it, and for some foreseeable time to come - the brain of the capitalist system. Surely it is the right time to embrace the fundamentals of our existence and not just how many new gadgets we dutifully buy because of the constant bombardment of advertising. The economic argument cannot afford to leave the environment behind as they are both intrinsically linked.

According to an annotated interview on the BBC website: "I think the credit crunch shows an end of an era. The lack of recognition of the end of American economic dominance contributed to the severity of the credit crunch. Resolving it will require no less than a new world order. The risk at the heart of the US sub-prime mortgage crisis was the result of low interest rates and excess liquidity. To resolve the resultant credit crunch in the globalised financial market, the West will need to work with emerging markets to deleverage. While the economic growth in the United States and the European Union has stagnated, global growth is driven by China and other emerging markets. Companies are turning to those markets. This is where the global economy has shifted East and is no longer driven by one dominant country. This heralds a new world order."

Unfortunately, this train of thought, with the prospect of China at the helm of the "new economic order", does not sit so tightly with reality. If the economic powerhouse of post-American hegemony wants to champion itself as the world's leading light, then the government needs to correct it internal problems. In the opinion of Will Hutton, Asia is just not innovative enough to seize the reins of global power yet.

Although Chinese premier Wen Jiabao was right in calling for rich nations to abandon their "unsustainable lifestyle" to fight climate change, perhaps he should first look at his own backyard: China is the world's greatest emitter of carbon dioxide.

Boldly, the British government has pledged to cut carbon emissions by 80% by 2050. That is an admirable goal but the massive cultural change needed to shift it away from the toxic system of consumerism to a more sustainable model is a tough nut to crack.

Ed Miliband, the new energy and climate change secretary, told MPs that the tough economic conditions were not an excuse to "row back" on the commitment to tackle global warming. However, with all these worthy initiatives coming from Mr Miliband, it is interesting to note that less than 1% of the UK's heat currently comes from renewable sources.

Contrast this with Germany, which has ten times as much wind power as Britain and 200 times as much installed solar power. America needs to play catch-up with them as soon as Mr Obama is in office.

Recession is already on Britain's doorstep and there's been a lot of talk about switching the world economy to a carbon-free future. Some naysayer's say it cannot be afforded but in October the government announced its intention to introduce a "feed-in tariff" (FIT), which guarantees rates for renewably produced electricity.

In the US, part of its bail-out is said to include $16bn of new green tax breaks for renewable energy, cleaner fuels and energy efficiency. That's encouraging. But are we to believe this or is it more idle rhetoric?

Governments the world over need to take Germany's cue and kickstart nascent industries, rewarding adopters of green technology. In the US, Mr Obama should send a clear message that he plans to take global warming seriously, first by appointing a "climate change czar", functioning as a special environmental adviser to the new president, and then taking bold new steps in arresting climate change.

We have yet to see what the new president will bring to the table but the old world order is surely finished and much of the world's enthusiasm over Barack Obama's victory was focused on change - his campaign slogan.

What we need to see is economic fundamentals being re-wrought into a new 21st century paradigm that rejects the consumer merry-go-round into a sustainable, edifying world that is seen to be dismantling toxic produce-and-dump economics in favour of one that benefits us all. It is also about time governments sidelined multinational corporations that refuse to go along with greening up. You can see the brutal reality of how these corporations wantonly and arrogantly pollute the planet, resulting in the cruel destruction of the Earth, in particular developing nations, on The Story of Stuff website.

But for that to happen we must all start to face the stark reality that colossal change must be made to economic systems and lifestyles, how we live and what we consume. The cultural changes necessary to bring this about will rent huge divisions for those reluctant to cede their fortunes of comfort - the pariahs of the new world order.

Laissez-faire capitalism doesn't work and has been proved not to work. It has also been the heart and soul of countries like Britain and the US for decades. Undoing it, rebuilding a system that is intelligent and renewable, is going to take time. And time is not something there's a great abundance of. It would also help if developed nations agree to clean technology transfers to the developing world to ensure some sense of equity.

The overriding question now is: will President Barack Obama accede to this mantle and start dissolving the Republican legacy of the toxic economy? He must; humanity is at a crossroads and it is the responsibility of everybody to play their part in rebuilding it anew, sustainably so. It is especially important that the lead comes from the world's great consumers and polluters: America.

Media Director of V9 Design & Build (http://www.v9designbuild.com), providing both local and outsourcing web and SEO services: we provide both brochureware and custom-designed websites, with tasteful design and branding, professional design and build, proven and successful SEO and e-marketing, e-commerce-driven database integration and content management systems.

Should The G8 Be In Charge Of Education, Sustainable Development And Humanitarian Services

Should the G8 be in charge of education, sustainable development and humanitarian services in the Developing world?

Lessons in life come via formal and informal education, while formal education by most is valued as a human right it can also be utilized to train and develop partakers into self-sufficient contributors and participants towards the development of sustainable societies. Many others take education for granted and use it to spread general and even useless knowledge. Education must be taken seriously to protect Human Rights and enhance peace and sustainable environments in developing societies. Since there are immediate troublesome conditions throughout the world, and especially in developing states in Africa, one must deeply consider what role formal education can play to hasten holistic development of the people towards bringing solutions to conflicts. Many of the G8 nations have been the caretakers of the developing world for at least the last century. Although this time has proven to be quite successful for most of the developing nations, has there really been any measurable success for African people? Has there been measurable success for poor people? And not to unfairly place blame, has anyone besides the G8 even taken the interest or responsibility to find solutions to help educate and assist development in poor countries otherwise?

These strong European and American alliances are the foremost leaders in education and development across the globe. They are creators of most of the religious, social, economic and political organizations that provide programs and services that assist developing nations and they work together to provide humanitarian support to developing peoples throughout the world. Yet, ironically, these European partners are also among those since the beginning of the slave trade in the 1600s, 1885 and beyond that have combined resources to trigger colonialism and neo-colonialism, and setting up bureaucracy that has played a very significant role in the under-development of African states as well. For centuries, this leadership has gathered valuable resources from especially Africa and from other developing nations in South America and had utilized both human and natural resources to service their own national interest and drive their economic and technological development. If in truth this is a historical fact about the history of our leaders, then have our leaders evolved to be good stewards since the active practice of enslavement, apartheid and colonialism? Have they become willing and able enough to create educational services, and social welfare systems that can empower those they once sought to dominate?

A brief 'stroll down memory lane' will allow us to remember the roles that our leaders have played in crimes against humanity. Hate, racism, greed, and having little regard for the human life of poor peoples are some of the human dis-eases recognizable as the causes of both the exploitation and genocide of African related and other peoples. Certain systems of domination were implemented by most of the G8 governments that severely exploited human rights. One such exploitation existed in slavery. Slavery is a system noted by the United Nations Human Rights Charter, to be a severe violation of human rights. Although many of the G8 nations have offered formal apologies for enslavement of humans there had been no reparations or solutions to the poverty that slavery and apartheid and colonialism created, given to most of the people that have suffered and chiefly those of African descent.

These African related people are themselves not respected by other nations and thought to be abusers of themselves and indifferent, and are among the same populations that present in large numbers as the impoverished and needy. On the other hand, since there has been no formal display of remorse to show respect for life in their behalf and no sentiments that seek to replace or rejoin families that were separated. And are there any sincere activities by leading governments to make amends for land, possessions or lives lost for those enslaved or exploited? Has there been a real effort to provide reparations for the lost of life, dignity and human rights? Additionally with no formal activities to address the trauma that these certain groups experienced for generations, is there any wonder how serious social problems including poverty might prevail among those with former slave, apartheid or colonial experiences?

And finally, some ask, how can the same Leaders who appear not to support the reparation of crimes against humanity perpetrated on specific peoples seek to bring other leaders of countries to justice for similar atrocities, RE-SURFACE as the teachers and healers of those same societies and the world? It is possible that governments do have remorse and seek healing from somewhere to learn how to show respect for people they once hated or abused. But let's ask the Afrikaners, if they have healed from the system of Apartheid in the last 20 years, where suddenly in the last 20 years almost 70 percent of the cases of HIV are in Africa, with the most cases in South Africa. Why are these Black African populations suddenly the most infected with HIV, and they appear not to thrive specifically? Could there really be a plan of genocide targeting specific people to gain their resources? I pray genocide in 2007 is not a reality, but if this is the case, human-kind and particularly those who stand up as global leaders are still terrible offenders of Human rights and need serious support in their recovery.

But maybe the same religions that were used to enslave Africans and others are working towards the healing of man-kind and can mend the dis-respect for life that caused exploitation and crimes against humanity such as slavery and genocide? Maybe the government and leadership of yesterday active in committing crimes against humanity did eventually want to rectify human dis-eases that caused exploitation and so they produced a document that would eventually manifest justice as created in the Declaration of Independence of 1776,

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness....But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. --

When the initial colonies wanted freedom from Britain their aim was to create a government that would protect human rights and they themselves were champions of liberty. Today have Americans lost sight of the initial purpose of America---to protect Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness for all men? Since most of us really have faith in life and Liberty it is certain that many would like to support the protection of the quality of life that our constitution as human, as opposed to animal stands for. We do not want to believe that there are leaders operating in 2007 who no longer care about protecting this quality of life. It appears that something has gone astray from the initial declaration of Independence that greatly supported the protection of Human rights and the happiness of mankind?

Consequently, some are not very confident that leading governments want to be successful in providing human services or champions of peace. Certainly, the last 50 years had not hosted a global environment of peace and security to warrant success. Even less than 40 years ago, numerous martyrs were assassinated and imprisoned in the name of human rights and development or peace: remember, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Marcus Garvey, Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Patrice Lumumba and Kwame Nkrumah just to name a few. In more recent history Leaders in the African-American community are still arrested or detained for unifying their communities to enhance the quality of life of economic development: remember Yahweh Ben Yahweh who was arrested and detained from 1990-2007. It is thought, he was arrested just because his community became economically sustainable. This happened in America. It would appear that government leaders in today are not in the business of supporting education systems or services that support the development of leaders that seek to protect human rights, at least this proven to be the case for African related or poor people specifically.

If this is so, can the G8 or other super powers be supported in their lead especially in sustainable development programs and global peace for Africa or elsewhere? Can they continue to take charge of programs and services that are established to protect human rights if their evaluation is not good?

The European alliances through religious missions or programs are the foremost providers and pioneers of services to humanity and continually raise money to serve and protect the needs and wants of developing peoples especially. Consequently, they have had the most potential to champion human development and the peace process. They have been the Global leaders in developing systems in Education, Health, Economics, Social Welfare, Business and Commerce and the pioneers in implementing related programs, services and activities across the globe. Certainly they have been successful in protecting the human rights of some, but it is also evident that they have not supported the sustainable development of Africa. Maybe they need guidance to direct their Human development and Education to insure a better progress for African-related and poor people in the future.

A look at recent history reflects that they need support in providing effective programs or services to Africa specifically. The protection of Human Rights in the last 50 years in Africa shows little progress in peace and sustainable economic development. A 2005 UN Human Development magazine about Africa reported 70 percent of the worlds HIV cases were in Africa alone and 27 percent of the worlds Refugees came from Africa, while Africa only contributed to being 10 percent of the world population. If the G8 have been in charge of Education programs in Health; Peace building and conflict management, then the amount of Refugees and bad health alone reflect little progress with government programs to support peace or human development and education in Africa.

Maybe Government leaders need others to help them with their health education and global peace and conflict management programs because something has gone astray from the intention of American Founding Fathers. We as consumers have a right to direct our support to programs and services that can better relate to the Life, Liberty and pursuit of happiness for all people it intends to serve. There are other leading agencies that can lay the foundation that will protect and service the rights of all humans in the future, which are usually non-governmental and have a genuine interest with no strings attached for human service. Governments in the business of Human Rights and protection should carefully review the Declaration of Independence and restructure to effectively champion Life; Liberty and pursuit of happiness for the good of all humanity. The specific target of groups of human beings for genocide or exploitation is a crime against humanity.

For those whose rights are continually and maybe even unintentionally disrespected, a Champion must arise to help open the door for non-governmental agencies to save innocent people and provide some immediate relief. Many will benefit and many more warrant the protection of their human rights, but targeting those in the most distress in a beginning. Every life is precious even though it appears that poor or people in developing countries are taken for granted. This makes it obvious that Governing bodies need assistance with their global peace and development objectives, especially when they try to serve the poor. The wars that exists today in Africa and the Middle East do demonstrate the lack of progress of super powers in protecting human rights and being real champions of peace.

While there is respect for our powerful leaders some guidance is needed in education and social affairs so that meaningful servicing of Human rights can progress. Non-governmental agencies can better support developing peoples with no strings attached.

My name is Dawnis Ba, I have worked within the field of Human Services for over 25 years. I have worked with both Government and non-governmental agencies towards the alleviation of poverty and addressing social service and human rights concerns. I am currently a private resettlement consultant, trainer and specialist: a problem solver for migration and poverty concerns. The World is calling on a real champion. Blood is a terrible thing to Waste and it cries from the ground. Visit http://www.globalhandincorporated.org