Managing Sustainability, Globally - por Seán Cleary -
|
|
Meanwhile, we have created a system in which the mobility of capital promotes
the mobility of industrial employment. When the relative cost of labor is lower
in certain locations, jobs are relocated to low-cost manufacturing environments
far faster than unemployed industrial workers can be retrained for higher
value-adding job opportunities in the developed economies.
So governments have become incapable of providing the protection their
citizens reasonably expect from them, having elected them to provide security
and enable growth and prosperity. This is exacerbated in times of economic
crisis, when both governments and citizens can least afford it, making it even
harder to accept and straining public trust in government.
If we are trapped in this paradigm, the future seems bleak. The question is:
Can we break out in a meaningful way?
Let's take climate. Current science suggests that we have somewhere between
five and ten years before we lose the ability to contain an increase in global
temperatures of 2°C.
Some argue that, in
these circumstances, we need to do two things: first, understand precisely how
dangerous the situation is, and second, recognize that the third industrial
revolution will create a phenomenal range of opportunities for investment,
growth and employment.
We don't know what the pace of that transition will be. We don't know who the
winners and the losers will be. What we do know is that those who commit early
and invest significantly will probably be better able to benefit.
Let's be blunt: China has scale. No matter how smart a scientist or an
engineer you are, you cannot easily achieve scale in, say, the Netherlands.
But you can certainly do so in China. The Chinese leadership is making a
series of determined bets on new energy technologies, and they are making
significant investments in these areas.
To create a competitive space in new technologies, one needs to allow a
thousand flowers to bloom. This approach offers a real chance that something
very interesting will emerge.
It is interesting to see how, for their own purposes, the Chinese and the
Americans are both pursuing this approach. It is an approach U.S. citizens can
buy into this vision because it is a variation on the classic American win-win
scenario.
The United States is used to winning competitive races of this sort. It is
possible, however, that this time Chinese companies, employing the benefits of
surplus capital and lower labor costs, may harvest the fruits of the collective
investments by scaling production earlier and driving manufacturing costs lower.
How to measure human welfare?
While we can secure great advantages by unlocking carbon-free technologies,
we must also address a more fundamental question: What do we mean by human
welfare? This is a question that has engaged western philosophers since the time
of Plato.
For decades, however, we have subordinated this question to three letters:
GDP, as in gross domestic product. But GDP is not equivalent to welfare.
GDP measures production through a simple equation:
A better measure of material well-being, however, would be the level and
distribution of consumption and income among households and the stock and
distribution of wealth in society.
Beyond material stocks and flows, there are also other things — such as
health, education, social ties, political voice, and the quality of governance —
that shape and define the quality of life. All these are components of welfare.
That doesn't mean
that everyone in the world will achieve high standards of welfare. It also
doesn't mean that we will eliminate inequality by taking this approach.
But it might help us reach a situation in which accumulation for the sake of
accumulation, and in which conspicuous consumption as a status symbol, will no
longer be regarded as the measure of human welfare.
That is where we are trapped today. One can tell how wealthy somebody is by
looking at his watch, the pearls or diamonds that she wears around her neck, the
car that he or she drives, the numbers of yachts or planes that he has, or the
luxurious locations in which she has residences.
That is how we measure welfare. That is how we measure status. It is,
however, irrational. And if we continue along this path, we will hit a concrete
wall. We have run up against limits.
We cannot keep on consuming in the way that the United States has managed to
consume over the last 25 years, and which new elites in China, Saudi Arabia,
Qatar, Abu Dhabi and Dubai seek to emulate — and even surpass — today.
We have to recalibrate. If we don't redefine what it is that makes us human
and determines our worth in more ethical terms, and in terms of values, we shall
have no future.
Obs: um pequeno grande artigo que pode alterar os fundamentos do desenvolvimento e a forma como esse desenvolvimento tem sido atingido, precarizando as relações entre pessoas, empresas, Estados, sociedades e povos. Há, pois, que parar e repensar tudo novamente, sob pena de agravarmos as desigualdades que hoje já são gritantes e podem desencadear conflitos evitáveis entre as nações e até no próprio espaço intra-societário onde em inúmeros países a situação já é explosiva.
|
Etiquetas: Globally - por Seán Cleary, Managing Sustainability
<< Home