WEAll Scotland hosts its second large scale event – Wealth of Nations 2.0 – in Edinburgh today.

The conference will be addressed by Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon and attended by experts and practitioners working to transform the economic system from across Scotland.

Ahead of her speech, Nicola Sturgeon has issued a clear statement that “wellbeing is as important as economic growth” and that Scotland must “redefine what success means”. Read about her commitment to building a wellbeing economy in this BBC coverage.

WEAll’s Katherine Trebeck has written in today’s Herald newspaper about the significance of the conference and the urgent need for governments and all of us to take action in order to transform the economic system. She says that “Scotland also has a role to play on the world stage, demonstrating that humanity can determine economics instead of the other way around.”

In The Times, Head of Oxfam Scotland Jamie Livingstone writes about the injustice of unpaid care, and why valuing caregivers should be a litmus test of whether we are succeeding in building a wellbeing economy. Oxfam Scotland is one of the key partners and sponsors of the Wealth of Nations 2.0 event. Earlier this week they launched important new research into the value of unpaid care in Scotland.

Keep up with the Wealth of Nations 2.0 event as it happens by following @WEAllScotland on Twitter. This page will be updated with further media coverage as it emerges.

 

What exactly is a wellbeing economy and how can we put it into practice?

What are the options and what is the path that makes sense in each particular business context?

‘The Business of Wellbeing: a guide to the alternatives to business as usual’ is a new publication launched today by WEAll. It aims to answer these questions, and to inspire decision makers at small- to mid-sized organisations to explore the wellbeing economy space.

It includes:

  • Analysis of the dimensions businesses need to deal with when trying to contribute to building a wellbeing economy, from leadership to accounting for impact;
  • Case studies of pioneering businesses to inspire what’s possible;
  • Expert views on how to navigate transformation;
  • A self-assessment tool to help decision makers plan their next steps.

The guide was created through a participatory process, with a steering group of business and wellbeing economy experts.

Ten stakeholder interviews were carried out to gather input from different solutions providers and to give us insights on challenges facing decision makers.

The guide doesn’t aim to give a complete overview of solutions – but it does shine a spotlight on a selection of those we believe could be useful on your journey.

The guide was facilitated and co-designed with SenseTribe Consulting.

Download the PDF guide here – or explore extracts in our dedicated Business of Wellbeing web portal.

Rafael Galaz, a chilean lawyer has been working on an investigation about how to spread the word of Ecological Economics, created a comic based on an interview that our very own Ambassador, Robert Costanza, gave 8 years ago in the “Yale Insights” Magazine. You can find the beautifully crafted comic attached below.

Comic Que es la Eco Eco public baja

 

Reposted from OpenDemocracy 

By Katherine Trebeck

Back in the 1800s, scholars in the field of economics cast an envious glance at their colleagues in science.

They envied physics, with its laws of gravity. They looked with green-eyes at those studying chemistry, with its elements and atoms. And they longingly admired their biologist chums with their categorisations and evolutionary adaptation.

Now more than a century on, as we begin the third decade of the third millennium, economics no longer seems to take heed of science, let alone defer to scientific realities.

It is (invariably mainstream) economists with their contentions and blind spots that drive so much policy making, not scientists with their evidence-based models and forecasts.

The tables have well and truly turned. And nowhere is this so sorely – and painfully – acute as in Australia in the summer of 2019 and 2020.

Bushfires rage across the country, fuelled by record heat, and are now surging through acres of parched land dryer than ever after the worst drought in a generation.

In response, the Australian Prime Minister has held fast to a vision that a growing economy is the only option. He told a national TV station that “What we won’t do is engage in reckless and job-destroying and economy-crunching [green] targets which are being sought”.

What Morrison is effectively asserting is that the economy matters more than the science – in fact, that a certain model of the economy matters more, one in which the sole purpose of the environment is as an input to production and where it is assumed that growth will translate to benefits for all. This positions the economy at the top of the food chain, dropping crumbs to communities and extracting from the planet rather than something that is dependent on society which operates as a sub-set of the natural world.

Believing that the economy’s pre-eminence warrants downplaying all other concerns is a mindset that dismisses reams of scientific evidence and warnings. It turns a blinkered eye to why communities are being told to take shelter on beaches, why the Australian Navy is being brought in to rescue them and why a toddler was given a medal to posthumously honour his firefighter father who was killed with two other volunteer ‘firies’ (as us Aussies affectionately term them) when a tree fell on their vehicle.

What is happening in Australia is unprecedented.

It is what scientists have warned would happen.

It is going to be the new normal.

Perhaps most importantly, it is the loudest wake up call mother nature could send humanity to tell us that the wounds we have inflicted on her are taking an untenable toll.

Many times in the past I have heard those advocating for a new economic model say that when a ‘crisis’ comes, the movement for a more humane economy needs to be ready with ideas and visions, as that is when these ideas will finally get traction. That tactic always jarred – it seemed a rather privileged perspective that ignored or discounted that for many years many people around the world have already been suffering from the impacts of an economic model that treated people and planet as inputs to production. But, admittedly, such ostensible lack of solidarity or empathy may have come with some real politik. It recognises – perhaps implicitly – power imbalances.

And many of those impacted by the Australian fires are powerful. Many are wealthy. Many are people who have benefited from the growth-ist economic model because they are perched at the top of the pile. The coast houses of bankers, doctors, and property developers have been destroyed. New Year’s Eve parties have been moved from balconies with their harbour views indoors to escape the smoke. Corporate sponsored cricket matches have been called off because visibility got too bad. Yes, these are the folk with the resources to cope and recover, but maybe they’ll help nudge the balance of the conversation.

While Australia continues to burn, we can hope that what most Australians have been recognising will finally be heeded: that this monstrous cry for help from the planet is what flips back the agenda, so that economics returns to its deference to, and awe of, science. That scientific and natural laws will trump dubious dreams of trickle down. That now that wealthy and powerful people are also being hit by nature’s fury, they will join the ranks of frontline communities around the world and lend their voices and resources to mobilising for the transition that countries like Australia need to make towards an economy that respects the planet and priorities social justice and a healthy environment.

Building this new economic model doesn’t need to be disruptive – it can and must be just. There are ways and resources to protect livelihoods and, even better, to ensure that those most shafted by the current economic model are first served. But no longer can it be dismissed as ‘reckless’ to protect one sector – coal – at the cost of so many houses, lungs, biodiversity and precious wildlife.

Here’s hoping that 2020 is the year that new alliances come together to recognise that this crisis is one that hurts us all, and that a more humane economy that is gentler on the planet is one that will be good for everyone.

Elizabeth Dirth, a member of the WEAll Research Fellow’s Network, has recently released two extensive reports offering solutions for both governments and business alike to support the Friday’s for Future movement.

The timing seems ever important as we’re watching an entire continent light up in flames. The question is, how can we support and amplify the initiatives of youth that are pushing for change in a loud and radical way? Both of Elizabeth’s tool-kits provide the answers that many governments and businesses are looking for.

Click the links below to learn more about how to participate in the global push for climate action.

The Futuring Tool: A Toolkit for Responding to the Demands of the Fridays for Future Movement (for Governments): https://www.iass-potsdam.de/en/output/publications/2019/futuring-tool-toolkit-responding-demands-fridays-future-movement

The Futuring Tool: A Toolkit for Responding to the Demands of the Fridays for Future Movement. 2nd Edition (for NGOs and businesses): https://www.iass-potsdam.de/en/output/publications/2019/futuring-tool-toolkit-responding-demands-fridays-future-movement-2nd

 

 

By Isabel Nuesse: WEAll Engagement and Content Lead 

Open technology builds a strong case for the practicality of building a wellbeing economy. While in Nakuru, Kenya at the Digital Open Technology Summit (DOTS) conference, I saw the potential transformation that open source technology can have on local communities. Hosted by Global Innovation Gathering (GIG) and the R0g agency for Open Culture and Transformation, the gathering showcased numerous examples of localized economic development addressing specific community needs all across the global south.

A majority of my time was spent learning. Learning about the innumerable opportunities that open-source technology can provide to communities and learning about the potential disruption that this space has, as well.

There were innovations at DOTS from open-sourced orthopedic braces, to underwater gliders to microscopes. All intended to be made by local makers, to solve local problems. The hyper-localization of these projects gave me hope that a “glocalized” future is possible. Meaning, a future that using the benefits of globalization to strengthen local communities. Open-source technology has found a balance between these often-conflicting futures. I was curious to look deeper at how WEAll intersects with this work.

It was obvious that a core principal of Open-Tech mirrors that of WEAll; to value collaboration over competition. In many ways this space challenges the system by doing exactly what Buckmaster Fuller said, “You never change things by fighting the existing reality; you change things by making a better model that makes the existing models obsolete.” In the same way that WEAll is working to build a new economic system, the model that open-tech uses introduces an entirely new way of sharing information and manufacturing products.

This actualizes in the introduction of an open-source MRI machine that is being developed. The innovation would hugely benefit local communities that would otherwise, not have access to such technologies, and it necessitates transparency from large companies to disclose the true cost of a product. This is systems change.

Leaving the conference, I became curious about how WEAll can continue to interact with the open-source technology space. It addresses a complex issue of keeping communities resilient against an ever-globalized world. The weaving of these two movements seems obvious to me. So, what’s next?

If you’re interested in learning more and following some of the organizations that attended check out their twitter pages here:

  • GIG, Germany: @WeareGIG
  • R0G Agency, Germany: @intertwilight
  • Ask Lab, Kenya: @ASKlab_Kenya
  • Ataka Hub, South Sudan: @AtakaHub
  • Mboa Lab, Cameroon: @labmboa
    VilSqure, Nigeria: @Vilsquare
  • Kumasi Hive, Ghana: @KumasiHive
  • Open BioEconomy Lab, UK: @OpenBioEconomy
  • Go Girls ICT Lab, Juba South Sudan: @gogirlsictjuba

 

Almost one year after publishing its first Vision Brochure, the Wellbeing Economy Alliance is excited to launch a brand new version of this important strategic document.

The WEAll Vision brochure sets out:

  • What WEAll is, including the background and vision for change
  • Details about WEAll’s theory of change and ongoing work
  • Who is involved with WEAll: the Amp team, Ambassadors, Global Council and Organisational members
  • WEAll’s future ambitions for transforming the economic system.
Click here to download a PDF of the new brochure now.

By Sam Butler-Sloss, Co-Lead of WEAll Youth Scotland and Organiser at Economists for Future

I got involved in the Wellbeing Economy Alliance because the case for repurposing and redesigning the economy to deliver wellbeing for people and planet is overwhelming. Yet, as a student of economics, it is unclear to me to what extent the economics profession agrees with this. 

In my experience, most economists want to enhance the wellbeing of humanity through analytical contributions. Yet, in the past several decades, dominant economic theory and practice has made a number of consequential errors that have compromised the discipline’s ability to fulfil this goal. Chief among them is the de-prioritisation of the single greatest threat to the wellbeing of humanity in the 21st century – the climate and ecological crisis. 

 Across teaching, research and public and policy engagement, economists have failed to adequately engage in this issue. The most cited journal in economics has never published an article on climate change. The teaching of economics remains abstracted from ecological foundations. And even as other academic disciplines have become increasingly vocal on this issue, economists have remained too silent. 

Worse too, when economists do engage, they often distort the problem. To name a few examples, their models tend to leave out tipping points, catastrophic risks and treat all threats as ‘marginal’. As a result, many economists’ contributions have been used as evidence to scale back, rather than scale up, climate ambition. 

The economics profession’s insufficient response to the climate crisis puzzles me – it appears they are not even living up to their own standards.  

Firstly, over the last several decades, economists have tried to convince the world that they are ‘scientific’. But, if they pride themselves on being scientific, then they must take the most important science of our day seriously.

Secondly, if the purpose of economics is to further human prosperity, then in an era of environmental breakdown, the exclusion of the natural world is only undermining that very goal.

 Thirdly, the priorities of economists are often governed by cost-benefit analysis, but there is no scenario that is more expensive than unabated climate change. Even when using this dangerously narrow framework, the economic imperative for urgent action is clear. With the inclusion of harder-to-quantify aspects, such as distributional justice, this imperative for action is only amplified.  

You might ask, why focus on economists? Is the inaction not the fault of politicians? Is it not a lack of political will? Sure, political willpower is in serious shortfall. As COP comes to an end, all eyes are on the world leaders. Rightly so. They must show leadership: they must take decisive and ambitious action or step aside for those that will. But pressure groups must also dig one layer deeper and ask how policy-makers make their decisions. For better or worse, economics has a central role in this process. If we are going to radically ramp up the ambition of climate policy, we must change how it is designed. We must change economics. 

That is what motivated us, a group of students from across the world, to found Economists for Future. To arrest the climate crisis, economics must move from getting it wrong to making it right. 

At Economists for Future, we are critical optimists. We have a deep belief in the power of good economics to make the world a better and more humane place. But we believe that we are currently not living up to our responsibility to help create and communicate a policy framework that accelerates the transformation to a more sustainable, prosperous and fairer world. 

At this stage, failure to step up to this responsibility and to seize this opportunity is to let down the world. If economists cannot engage in this economic transformation the science requires—then who? If we do not raise our game now—then when? The likelihood is it will be too late. In which case, history has every right to judge us harshly. 

In our one-page open letter we lay out the case for economists to raise their game. 

We are encouraging everyone to sign and share it. 

 

Wellbeing economy ideas are making a splash around the world. Global and national media outlets are giving them more and more attention.

This week, the Wellbeing Economy Governments partnership of Scotland, Iceland and New Zealand had positive coverage from Australia to the US.

And our own Katherine Trebeck went down a storm as a panellist on BBC Debate Night in the UK.

Check out all of the coverage from the past week here:

Image: SBS World News

The circularity paradox in the European steel industry

What happens when solutions to economic system challenges start to create their own problems?

Researching the European steel industry, Dr Julian Torres discovered that the more integrated supply chains are, the easier it is to track the lifecycle of steel alloys and the elements that go into them. Higher levels of integration make it easier to bring steel back via reverse logistics without losing too much value. The more you do this, the less iron ore you need to mine and melt, and the longer the reserves of high-grade iron ore – which needs less energy to transform into steel – will last. And integrating supply chains does not necessarily mean having the different steps all within the same company.

Recycling, remanufacturing and refurbishing are indisputably important tools for reducing our consumption of natural resources. These activities contribute to what scientists call circularity: making sure we use materials for as long as possible, over and over, so that we exploit nature less and less.

Doing so requires creating what are called “secondary markets”, where used materials are gathered up, reworked and injected back into the economy. While this is an essential part of creating circularity, there can sometimes be unintended and negative consequences. A striking example is the secondary metals market: it has been a success), creating new jobs and business opportunities), but the environmentally friendly goal that it once had is no longer a priority.

In Europe, we recycle more than 70% of used steel on average, and just over 30% of all recycled or remanufactured steel is produced in furnaces that use electricity rather than burning coal. Not bad, but no longer enough when considering the increasing steel demand from developing nations, which are growing rapidly.

 

Read Julian’s recent piece for The Conversation here explaining his findings, and what the steel industry can do to improve.

He has also created this entertaining video to help explain the circularity paradox – a.k.a. the “little monster” Scrappy! Check it out, and be sure to share it.

Dr Julian Torres is a recent graduate of the AdaptEcon II PhD programme. During the Programme’s final retreat in Iceland in August he participated in workshops with the WEAll Amp team. Julian received funding from the European Commission’s Horizon 2020 Programme via a Marie Curie Fellowship on Excellent Research (grant agreement 

675153). Julian is a member of the International Society for Industrial Ecology and a Board Member of the Jean Monnet Excellence Center on Sustainable Development.

Photo by Scott Webb from Pexels

Dr  Yannick Beaudoin is a WEAll Global Council member. He’s also Director General of the David Suzuki Foundation in Canada (a WEAll member organisation).

He recently appeared on cosmetics industry podcast EcoWell to discuss the wellbeing economy and how sustainability and alternative economic thinking apply to the cosmetics industry.

So, check out the original podcast here, or listen below:

WEAll Wales founder Duncan Fisher has written a series of four visionary articles on the Institute of Wales Affairs website, designed to encourage and guide Wales towards becoming a wellbeing economy.

Last week we shared the first of the series here.

You can now read all four at the links below.

  1. Unhappiness threatens our democracies: the data proves it
  2. Beyond GDP – welcome to wellbeing
  3. Wellbeing worldbeaters: New Zealand, Scotland and Iceland
  4. Welsh wellbeing – where we need to go from here

If you’re interested in getting involved with WEAll work in Wales, contact Duncan here. He is in the process of establishing a new WEAll hub in Wales and is keen to connect with like-minded people and organisations to build momentum.

The newest WEAll place-based hub is developing quickly in Wales, with seasoned campaigner Duncan Fisher taking the lead on pushing for a wellbeing approach to economics.

Wales’ devolved Assembly is already world-leading in its approach to intergenerational justice, having appointed a Future Generations Commissioner and enacting a Future Generations Act in 2015.

Now, Duncan argues in the first of a series of policy-focused articles for the Institute of Welsh Affairs (IWA), it is time ” for wellbeing economics to be made the lynchpin of economic policy in Wales, replacing the central pursuit of growth.”

Duncan goes on:

“It is quite evident that fundamental system change is absolutely and urgently required and that there is a long way to go to achieve it but very little time. I believe that shifting to wellbeing economics is fundamental to such system change.

The purpose of these four posts is to float ideas and invite reaction and rapid discussion. The global organisation, Wellbeing Economy Alliance, provides an invaluable resource for discussions everywhere in the world. The Alliance has provided great help to me in composing these posts.

At the end of the series, after assessing the feedback to the first three pieces, I will float ideas for what more we could do in Wales to hasten the journey towards system change. The Wellbeing Economy Alliance stands by ready to help, connecting us with the best minds and activists across the world.”

Read Duncan’s full post on the IWA website here – we’ll be sharing his future posts when they’re published, too.

Image: VisitCardiff

Reposted from Mint Magazine

Ahead of the 50th anniversary of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics, Mariana Mazzucato was crowned the winner of the new Not the Nobel Prize by public vote in London last night.

Mazzucato, Professor in the Economics of Innovation and Public Value at University College London, was recognised ‘for reimagining the role of the state and value in economics’.

The award ceremony was hosted by comedian Mark Dolan in central London and attended by fellow finalists Steve Keen, Kate Raworth and Tom Rippin.

Economists Jessica Gordon-Nembhard, Laura Carvalho, and Randall Wray were also up for the innovative award celebrating the thinkers and doers who are finding economic solutions to the challenges of the 21st century.

Receiving the award for Mazzucato, Henry Li shared her remarks paying tribute to her fellow finalists: “Dark times need enlightened thinking. I’m honoured to receive the prize alongside some luminary economists asking critical questions. To name a few, Steve [Keen] encourages us to ask about the structure of our financial system, Kate [Raworth] encourages us to get real about both the analysis and implementation of a circular economy, Laura [Carvalho] helps us to rethink macro-economics questioning the assumptions behind austerity.”

Mariana Mazzucato is the Founding Director of the UCL Institute for Innovation & Public Purpose (IIPP) and author of ‘The Entrepreneurial State’ and ‘The Value of Everything’. Her research has revealed that every piece of technology that makes the iPhone ‘smart’ was government funded: the Internet, GPS, its touch-screen display and the voice-activated Siri. She argues that the public sector’s role can and should extend well beyond fixing market failures to co-creating markets, especially in responding to climate change and the Green New Deal.

Henry Leveson-Gower, creator of #NotTheNobel Prize and CEO Promoting Economic Pluralism said: “Over the past half-century, the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics has celebrated ideas at the heart of an economic system heading for collapse. We urgently need fresh economic thinking to meet the challenges of ecological breakdown, financial crises, and soaring inequality”.

The Duchess of Sussex Meghan Markle has been learning about the wellbeing economy during her visit to South Africa, according to coverage by CNN.

The official Sussex Royal instagram shows the Duchess being given a tour of the Victoria Yards in Johannesburg by Simon Siswe – who is a WEAll Research Fellow.

Read more on the CNN website. 

Image: Sussex Royal

French press agency AFP has written a news piece exploring the need for economic system change and has included WEAll, following an interview with WEAll Executive Chair Stewart Wallis.

This is a great example of mainstream news outlets having an increasing interest in wellbeing economy ideas.

Check out the piece here.

Sam Butler-Sloss, who is leading the emerging WEAll Youth group in Scotland, has written a powerful piece in today’s Independent.

In his opinion piece, “Criticise the climate strikers if you like. In five years we’ll all be at the ballot box and the world will change”, Sam makes a strong case for economic system change and advocates for the strength and power of young people in driving change.

Read Sam’s piece on the Independent site here.

This piece was first published on OpenDemocracy

Download and share this piece in French, German or Spanish

Download the full briefing paper

7 Ideas for the G7

Economic policies to tackle inequality and deliver wellbeing

By Amanda Janoo

 

This week the heads of state of the economies that comprise the Group of 7 (the ‘G7’) gather in France to discuss the critical issues of our time – with the stated focus of fighting inequality.

The group first came together in the 1970s to find a collective solution to the oil crisis that was destabilizing economies worldwide. Since their first meeting, the leaders of the G7 have met annually to confront the economic challenges that bind us.

This G7 gathering could be historic, if they take the bold and swift action required to tackle inequality, as well as the climate emergency, and to deliver the Sustainable Development Goals.

As we brace ourselves for another financial crisis, inequality between and amongst countries continues to grow exponentially, breeding social and political unrest worldwide.

Within many of the G7 countries, affluence is not breeding happy and healthy societies but lonely and anxious ones. The global balance of power is shifting from nation states to Multinational Corporations threatening the very democratic principles that bind the G7 countries. All while the rapid rate of biodiversity loss and climate change threaten our very existence.

These existential issues cannot be solved by any single country alone. They are a product of a global economic system that desperately needs to be reformed. The G7 countries represent over half of global economic wealth and still have the power to change this system. Tinkering with exchange rates and select tax policies will not cut it.

We need our leaders to be brave at this critical juncture in history when the world is splintering, and to realize there is far more that binds us than divides us.

My new paper, published today by The Wellbeing Economy Alliance, offers 7 Ideas for the G7 in the spirit of hope and a belief that a more just and sustainable economy is not only possible, but a few strategic decisions away:

 

  1. Adopt alternative progress indicators to GDP:

Global obsession with Gross Domestic Product as a progress indicator has resulted in widespread confusion between means and ends. The G7 should abandon the objective of GDP growth and agree to focus on achieving real economic objectives that matter most to citizens.

  1. Reform international economic organizations to promote wellbeing economies:

Perhaps no one has suffered more deeply from our dubious notion of progress than the global south. The G7 should work to reform the international economic organizations to encourage locally-oriented, context-appropriate economic development practices. We must abandon the idea that development or progress is a one-way street and create space for experimentation to identify systems of production and provision that can bring wellbeing to all.

  1. Binding code of conduct for multinational corporations (MNCs):

For too long, the global economy has allowed multinational corporations to accumulate unprecedented wealth and power, leading to a “race to the bottom” amongst countries to adopt the lowest environmental, labour and tax standards to attract or appease these global giants. A binding code of conduct would create greater space for upholding democratic governance of economies, and ensure more ethical production practices worldwide.

  1. Global Competition Regulation:

Every sector in the global economy is dominated a handful of corporations. MNC controlled supply chains now account for over 80% of global trade each year. This level of economic conglomeration is economically unsustainable and ethically unacceptable. We need global competition regulation to minimize risk and ensure more equitable and balanced business development worldwide.

5. Create citizens wealth funds:

The rise of new technologies has created new wealth, much of it reliant on public funding for education and research. The G7 should recognize that technological development must benefit society as a whole and not just the select few – which requires a new tax and redistribution system. Through a windfall tax on technological breakthroughs G7 countries could develop Citizen Wealth Funds at the country level to fund universal basic income, public services and infrastructure development.

6. Ban and redistribute all off-shore bank account funds:

Due to lack of global economic coordination and oversight, it is now estimated that at least 10% of the world’s GDP is held in offshore bank accounts. We need an official ban of all off-shore banking, with the G7 using their collective intelligence to extract all money currently held within these institutions and put it directly into a “global citizens wealth fund” to combat climate change and achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.

  1. Financial Transaction Tax (Tobin Tax or ‘Robin Hood’ tax):

Global financial markets now move at lightning speed, generating immense wealth and at the same time universal vulnerabilities. France and Germany have been pushing for a global financial transaction tax at the G7 but have not succeeded in gaining substantial traction. This policy agenda would tax international financial transactions, particularly speculative currency exchange transactions, reducing financial volatility and raising billions to combat the global crises of our time.

 

These bold ideas are fully feasible given the wealth and power of the G7 countries. During World War II, the Army Corp of Engineer’s had a motto: “the difficult we do immediately, the impossible will take a little while.”

There are moments in history when paradigms shift. We are at this moment and if the G7 promotes these policies, we would be well on our way to achieving the “impossible”:  a global economic system that ensures we all live long and healthy lives in harmony with our natural environment.

Download the full briefing paper here

Image: Lafargue Raphael/ABACA/ABACA/PA Images

The Centre for the Understanding of Sustainable Prosperity (CUSP) has published a new working paper making the case for an early zero carbon target for the UK.

‘Zero Carbon Sooner’ by Tim Jackson addresses the question of when the UK should aim for zero (or net zero) carbon emissions. Starting from the global carbon budget which would allow the world an estimated 66% chance of limiting climate warming to 1.5o C, the paper derives a fair carbon budget for the UK of 2.5 GtCO2. The briefing then analyses a variety of emission pathways and target dates in terms of their adequacy for remaining within this budget.

A key finding is that a target date for zero carbon is not sufficient to determine whether the UK remains within its carbon budget. Policy must specify both a target date and an emissions pathway. For a linear reduction pathway not to exceed the carbon budget the target year would have to be 2025. Nonlinear pathways, such as those with constant percentage reduction rates, have a higher chance of remaining within the available budget provided that the reduction starts early enough and the reduction rate is high enough. It is notable that reduction rates high enough both to lead to zero carbon (on a consumption basis) by 2050 and to remain within the carbon budget require absolute reductions of more than 95% of carbon emissions as early as 2030. On this basis, the paper argues in favour of setting a UK target for net zero carbon emissions by 2030 or earlier, with a maximum of 5% emissions addressed through negative emission technologies.

Download and read the briefing paper here.

By Lisa Hough-Stewart, WEAll Communications and Mobilisation lead

On Wednesday 10 July, Caroline Lucas MP secured a debate in the UK House of Commons about ‘Economic growth and environmental limits’.

The Green MP made a powerful speech, focused on “why and how our current economic model, which puts GDP growth above everything else, must change fundamentally, fast.”

Quoting Greta Thunberg’s famous statement that ‘our house is on fire’, Lucas argued that “the GDP growth obsession is the obstacle blocking the door to the emergency exit.”

Speaking on behalf of the UK Government, The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury Robert Jenrick gave a response which continued to be centred on economic growth, stating that “it is now more important than ever that the Government and institutions such as the Treasury, which is at the heart of this debate, confront head on the question of how we continue to grow the economy while protecting our environment and tackling climate change.”

However, Jenrick did agree with the importance of moving beyond GDP, going on to say that “GDP undoubtedly has its limitations and should not be seen as an all-encompassing measure of welfare and wellbeing, and we entirely accept that it was never designed to be”.

Representatives of other parties taking part in the debate also supported this sentiment.

Ahead of the debate, Caroline Lucas published a piece in Politics Home which set out her arguments in full detail, and referenced Katherine Trebeck’s ideas as well as those of other WEAll members and partners.

Considering alternatives to GDP, she wrote: “To do all this we need to start measuring what matters. The economist Katherine Trebeck has one suggestion: ‘Why not get countries to measure the number of girls who bicycle to school? What clearer yardstick could convey so much about progress in women’s education, green transport, health and poverty alleviation in a single number?'”

Both in the article and in the Westminster debate, Lucas heavily cited the new report from WEAll member The European Environmental Bureau (EEB)  which demonstrates that efforts to decouple economic growth from environmental harm, known as ‘green growth’, have not succeeded and are unlikely to succeed in their aim.

The full transcript of the Westminster debate can be accessed via Hansard here.