Not A Green Budget

While there were a couple of measures in the Budget that could be seen as “Green”, these measures are more about raising revenue than attempting to benefit the environment. The greatest obstacle is this obsession with growth.

The growth of an economy by measuring the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is a seriously blunt instrument. Further, even most economists don't understand how or what elements of the economy go towards making up this measure. Put simply, it measures the total earnings of all individuals, the businesses and the government in the country. Now if we were just talking about people, businesses and government departments just buying goods and services then as a measure it would be useful. However as it also measures many negative aspects of life that money get spent on, it fails to show the real state of any economy.

The problem is that if there is a spate of arson, the cost of rebuilding the properties gets measured as does the increase in insurance premiums. This all makes it look as though the economy is growing, as if you lose everything in a house fire say you then have to spend more on refurnishing your new abode. However the GDP fails to measure the losses of the original property.

Looking at an environmental prospective; even shutting down an industry that was heavily polluting adds a paper benefit to the economy as the costs of clearing up the pollution gets seen as a benefit to the economy.

The economists have the same mindset as the people I challenge for dropping litter. The people who toss rubbish in the street, will often say that they are keeping the road cleaners employed.

Therefore the economists and politicians see growth as useful measure but fail to see that a shrinking economy can be equally as good if not better. If the shrinking was due to high unemployment then that would be bad. But if there was a downturn that was caused by the majority of office workers working from home, utilising the internet and telecommunications to do the same work and no longer having to travel to a place of work, the losses would occur in the daily cost of travel for those individuals. While there would be less money spent on petrol that would impact the oil companies and allied businesses, the benefits will also be less congestion delaying the essential journeys, less pollution to cause breathing problems and expenditure on health care.

All this could happen using existing technology, and that shrinking of the GDP would benefit all but a few vested interests.

This is just one example of where a shrinking could be a real benefit to the overall economy. If everyone who can grew their own vegetables, that would mean that there was less money spent in the supermarkets as well as the reduction in the cost of health care from improved diet and better exercise. The trouble is that activities like this, in the eyes of the economists, are not seen to benefit the economy in ways that can be measured.

Staying with the environment, growth in personal transport is seen as good for the economy. As well as greater volume in car sales benefiting manufacturing and the suppliers of the fuel, the conventional economists prospective fails to take account of the costs that go with this. Like congestion extending the time required to travel anywhere, or the effects of pollution on health. In fact these extra costs are seen as benefiting the GDP as more money is spent on these.

It is this drive for growth that is damaging the environment and stopping any real growth in the quality of life.

This method of only looking at the world purely in terms of its monetary value is at the core of most of the problems we have today. Environmentally where the worlds forests are only valued in terms of the economic earnings from the timber, and not in the way that these forests hold back rainwater, preventing flooding and providing drinking water.

Additionally this fixation on growth of GDP means that important tasks in our societies become undervalued. Here in the UK while the cost of childcare is expensive the wages for the people who work in childcare is very low. This leads to people who would be the best people to care for children, will move on to better paid jobs. Yet caring for the next generation should be one of the most valued tasks in life. Yet people who trade in financial derivatives get paid small fortunes even for doing their job badly.

Equally there needs to be a change to fair trade. While the concept of free trade may sound the right way to carry out commerce, free trade is in fact exploitation. It is based upon paying the least you can for any resource and selling it for the maximum price you can get. While that may earn businesses or individuals good profits, it also creates volatility in the market. That is why crude oil has hit record highs yet again. At the time of writing oil is 110 US dollars per barrel while it only costs 20 US dollars to produce. Yet the free market also means that livestock farmers in the UK and the US are struggling to make any profits as it is cheaper to ship in meat from halfway around the world. Even excluding the environmental cost, this free trading creates the situation where the UK and the US are placing themselves at risk of being held hostage over food supplies. If we loose the ability to feed ourselves we are venerable to any number of situations that could disrupt international transport.

Fair trade has the effect of ensuring a stable price, for the farmer and prevents inflation. While it does prevent spectacular profits, it stops the exploitation. Further, by stabilising supply there is less risk of starvation occurring.

Fair trade not only applies to food, when applied to all areas of commerce the consumer gets a better standard of product that's safer and lasts longer. The manufactures also get a better price, leading to better wages and less environmental impacts. Less resources wasted, Less energy used, fewer good transported around the world.

We need to start looking for alternative economic solutions. For example if everyone who is unemployed were provided with an allotment to grow some of their own food, we would reduce the cost of unemployment. However, I am a realist and know that most of the unemployed would not make the effort.

Just as I know that no government will really start to tackle climate change until we have the levels of the seas rising.