Just a couple of them:
Tony Juniper says we should scrap environmentally destructive “free” trade agreements in favour of ‘a new sustainable trade agreement’.
Given that the case for free trade, when you take the nation state out of it, simply collapses to the case for market exchange, d\’ye think our Tony is hankering after something a little less than sensible?
Population growth – it’s environmentalists’ elephant in the room. But we ignore it at our peril, says Nick Reeves. ‘Global population is now six billion and is projected to be 11 billion by 2050. Scratch the surface of any environmental problem and it reveals population growth, and the way we live our lives, as the root cause. The need for a population policy has never been more urgent. While governments continue to see big populations as an indicator of economic strength, with a place at the top table of the UN guaranteed, the population problem will escalate and lead to environmental catastrophe.’
Err, that 11 billion and rising comes from projections of a world where we reduce trade, reduce globalisation. The peak at 9 billion then falling comes from a world in which we increase trade, increase wealth, increase globalisation. Nick and Tony appear to be arguing at cross purposes here, don\’t they?
And how about this for a novel idea from David Boyle – local, city and regional currencies. ‘They mean we use resources more efficiently,’ he says – something people have already started doing in Totnes.
Beg pardon? How does that work? If the currencies are exchangable, then it makes no difference (only the minor incovenience of the exchange itself) and if they\’re not exchangable then we\’ve just insisted that each locality is self-supporting: see above about trade and population.
Not, I think, the most convincing of proposals.