Monthly Archives: May 2020

Council received an update on the impact of COVID-19 on the City of Timmins bottom line during Tuesdays meeting.

The potential impact on revenue is projected to be about $2.4 million ($2,423,000), while the impact on expenses is an additional almost $650,000 ($649,000), said Dave Landers, the citys chief administrative officer.

And the potential impact on agencies, boards and commissions is nearly $1.7 million ($1,699,000).

Landers pointed out the report looks at a period running from give or take March 17 to June 30.

A report will follow from Finance in June that will look forward based on activity we can cut, defer or move forward in a way that will consider the current financial situation, he said.

That being said, there is some positive information to report.

Landers noted even though the Building and Planning department was not able to move forward with some of the applications and permits it had received electronically, with the construction ban now lifted permits with an additional $ 1.2 million of value have been realized as of the end of March in comparison to the same point last year.

Financial services can report, as well, we have received about $58,000 in summer student funding for essential student positions, he said.

The CAO also had some good news to report in terms of property tax collection.

Right now, we are not experiencing a significant tax collection shortfall, Landers said.

At this point in time, we are tracking along the same lines as last year, for both water billing and property taxes.

As the year goes on, that situation may very well change but as it currently stands, we are in good position, particularly from a cash-flow basis.

According to the report, by the end of April the city collected 42.63% of its budgeted tax levy, compared to 42.53% in 2019, which amounts to $85,214 more collected than in the prior year.

In terms of water billing, at the end of April the city had collected 37.68% of its budgeted revenues, compared to 38.25% in 2019, resulting in a $124,180 decrease from the previous year.

The City of Timmins has continued to work closely with the (Timmins) Chamber of Commerce and others through a (Business) Continuity and Recovery Task Force, which we are co-chairing, Landers said.

A number of different community agencies involved in that group, as we try to plan for impacts to the business community. The (Downtown Timmins) BIA participates, Timmins Economic Development Corporation (TEDC) is at the table, The Venture Centre, our MP (Charlie Angus) and our MPP (Gilles Bisson) also participate, so we are able to get information carried back.

At this point in time, an additional business survey is going forward as we try to track the impact of whats happening on the business community.

So far, there are a few areas of focus the group is working on. We are looking at evaluating and making some recommendations to government on the programs that have been rolled out.

We do know, from the business community, there has been a wide uptake of the programs that have been announced some of them quite effectively.

Some of them, I think we could recommend some positive changes, particularly things like commercial rent.

Also, as a group, we are trying to turn our heads toward business modernization and customer service in a post-pandemic world, how we support the business community as it moves forward into I guess what we can consider uncharted waters.

Landers noted they are also looking at business support in terms of health and safety and activities that might stimulate the citys urban core.

At the same time, as you are aware, there has been work updating our Community Improvement Plan, he said.

We are at the state where a couple of drafts have been completed. At this point, it is going out for stakeholder comment.

We are looking to receive information from the public and stakeholders on how to improve that Community Improvement Plan.

Landers also noted moving forward the city is looking from a health and safety perspective on how to get back to normal, or what normal will look like as it moves through the restart of Stage 1, Stage 2 and onward.

At this point in time, I think there are a couple of things we need to consider from a city point of view, he said.

There have been a number of announcements that have come from other (federal and provincial) levels of government to support individuals and businesses, but we still really havent seen anything to support municipalities which isnt surprising at this point.

The business of government is focusing on higher risk areas, but from a municipal point of view there are a few areas of advocacy we need to consider.

Specifically, our municipality and others across Ontario are going to need funding to offset revenue losses in airports and transit services, as well as some other areas throughout the municipality.

Additionally, there is going to be a requirement for funding for social and health services due to increased service demands, particularly in areas like long-term care, homelessness and childcare.

Mayor (George) Pirie has taken the lead in calling on governments to look to initiate a specific Northern Ontario Recovery Task Force, as part of a broader provincial task force.

Many of the issues in the North, with our resource-based economies, are distinct from the south.

Those are areas of advocacy I think we need to keep in front of us over the new few months.

Additionally, the report presented to council indicated the CAO is working with TEDC to apply for grant funding for a strategic planning process for an economic diversification strategy to help build resiliency into the economy and plan for future growth.

Link:

Pandemic projected to cost city $2.4M in revenues - Timmins Press

object(WP_Post)#890 (24) { ["ID"]=> int(66914) ["post_author"]=> string(1) "1" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2020-05-28 16:03:19" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2020-05-28 10:33:19" ["post_content"]=> string(12640) "Between 1970 and 2015, India registered a six-fold increase from 1.18 billion to 7 billion tonnes in annual material consumption. By 2022, India will be the most populous nation in the world, and its expected that by 2030, its annual material consumption would double to 14.2 billion tonnes due to population growth, urbanisation, economic mobility, and the resulting growth in per-capita resource consumption. Currently, Indias resource extraction of 1,580 tonnes/acre is 251% higher than the world average of 450 tonnes/acre. While Europe recycles 70% of its consumption items, India recycles only 20%. India is also the third highest emitter of greenhouse gases, and accounts for 9.2% of total world emissions. Given that India aspires to become a global manufacturing hub, we would witness higher levels of consumption of raw materials, than whats required to meet Indias domestic needs. Therefore, Indias traditional take-make-waste linear economic approach will cause severe ecological damage with untoward economic and social ramifications. Maximised extraction of utility from raw materials, produced goods, and perishables, through-out their life-cycle, is central to building a circular economy. Given that India currently recycles only 20% of its consumption, there is enormous scope for improvements in this area, and this provides opportunity for innovation and employment. Hence the journey from the current linear economic model to a circular economic model is filled with both ecological and economic benefits. According to the Ellen McArthur foundation, transitioning to a circular economy will result in US$ 624 billion in economic benefits, and reduce carbon emission by 44% (compared to current development path) in 2050 alone. As part of the sweeping economic reforms announced in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the national government, in coordination with the state governments, must develop a roadmap for institutionalising a circular economic growth model for the nation. The journey towards building a circular economy needs a multi-pronged approach requiring the engaged participation of governments, industry and citizens. It needs a robust roadmap jointly owned and championed by the central, state, city and other local governments, and it must focus on the following aspects:

Citizen awareness and source segregation across the entire population

Tax incentives and financing to make investments in CE more financially viable

Industry specific roadmap to enable transition to CE based business and operating models in key industries

Technological innovation in technologies that make CE possible and viable

Policy roadmap and coordination between the national government, state governments, city governments, and industry

Read the original here:

As India rebuilds its economy, it is time to make it circular and sustainable - Observer Research Foundation

This weekend The Irish Times presents a series of articles on remaking Ireland after the pandemic. As part of this, Prof Mariana Mazzucato of the University College London a leading international economist and author answered questions from Cliff Taylor about what should happen next

Cliff Taylor: In your view has the Covid-19 crisis shown up shortcomings in the ability of states to respond?

Mariana Mazzucato: The crisis has shown up shortcomings in states capabilities, but more than that, it has shown up how the way that we have been thinking about the role of the state over the past half century has been entirely inappropriate. Since the 1980s, governments have been told to take a back seat and let business steer and create wealth, intervening only for the purpose of fixing problems when they arise.

The result is that governments are not always properly prepared and equipped to deal with crises such as Covid-19 or the climate emergency.

By assuming that governments have to wait until the occurrence of a huge systemic shock before they resolve to take action, insufficient preparations are made along the way. In the process, critical institutions providing public services and public goods more widely such as the NHS in the UK, where there have been cuts to public health totalling 1 billion since 2015 are left weakened.

The austerity measures imposed after the 2008 financial crisis were the opposite of the investment needed to increase capability in the public sector, and make it ready for the next shock to the system.

Cliff Taylor: What are the lessons of this for the recovery?

Mariana Mazzucato: This crisis, and the recovery we need, give us an opportunity to understand and explore how to do capitalism differently. This requires a rethink of what governments are for: rather than simply fixing market failures when they arise, they should move towards actively shaping and creating markets to take on societys most pressing challenges. They should also ensure that partnerships with business involving government funds are driven by public interest, not profit.

When private companies ask for bailouts from governments, we must consider the world we want to build for the future, and the direction of innovation that is needed to get there, and add conditions to these bailouts accordingly, to benefit public purpose, not just private.

This will secure the direction of travel we want green, sustainable, and equitable. When conditionalities are done well, they align corporate behaviour with the needs of society. In the short term, this focuses on preserving employment relations during the crisis and maintaining the productive capacity of the economy, whilst avoiding extraction of funds to financial markets and executive compensation. In the long-run, it is about ensuring that business models lead to more inclusive and sustainable growth.

Cliff Taylor: Can governments aim to direct the recovery to be greener and more sustainable, or is it just about fire-fighting for the moment?

Mariana Mazzucato: Governments can and should take a long-term and directional view, avoiding the tyranny of the urgent in only fire-fighting. Governments have the upper hand in public-private negotiations for the first time in decades they must use it!

A clear example is happening in the green and sustainable arena, around the conditionalities attached to government assistance; when planning these large-scale interventions, governments should be focusing on smart conditions that match their green new deal strategies of lowering carbon emissions while also investing in workers.

The French government has putgreen conditions on Air France to decrease CO2 emissions in domestic flights by 50 per cent by 2024, and to stop flying domestic routes where there are rail competitors; conditions for Austrian Airlines could include securing jobs, in addition to green commitments, and the US CARES Act conditions include limits on compensation for the highest paid airline employees, and maintenance of employee pay.

US Senator Elizabeth Warren has also called for strict bailout conditionalities, including higher minimum wages, worker representation on boards and enduring restrictions on dividends, stock buybacks and CEO bonuses. When relevant and possible, governments should use conditionalities to advance longer-term, ambitious, green and social missions.

The recovery cannot just be a return back to the normal we were in before: it was that economic normal of finance-led and debt-led growth; of failing to correctly assign value to the key workers and essential delivery systems we rely on; of dramatic and growing inequality between ordinary people, and CEOs and other owners of capital; and, in many places, of austerity and public sector outsourcing leading to a decimated, under-invested public sector, which in itself was not able to make vital investments in public value.

Instead, the recovery needs to be a full-scale economic renewal, in which we harness the tools at the disposal of government from investment, to procurement, to challenge prizes to tilt the playing field in the direction of equitable, green and sustainable economic growth.

Cliff Taylor: Is there a risk that things will just go back to being done the way they were or does the crisis give an opportunity to restart in some areas? Does restarting in a new way require new national cultures new ways for the State and private sector to work and new national goals etc?

Mariana Mazzucato: The work I have been leading at the institute I founded and direct at University College London, the Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose, has long focused on the governments role in steering ambitious, long-term, cross-sectoral (and, in government, inter-departmental) approaches to societal challenges missions, which allow governments to actively shape markets, not just fix market failures.

We have worked with governments from Scotland to South Africa to craft mission-oriented innovation plans. Re-orienting the economy in a green, climate-friendly, and fair direction, should not just be a government mission for moral reasons. It is not even because this future world will give us all rich and poor a better way to live. It is because not doing so is a risk that is not worth taking.

Earlier this year, the news media were full of frightening images of overwhelmed firefighters, not overwhelmed health-care providers: we thought this would be the story of 2020.

The climate crisis still is the story of 2020 and the coming century; Covid-19 is a product of environmental degradation, and we see new climate-linked crises on the horizon cyclone Amphan is currently breaking in India and Bangladesh in the middle of the pandemic, and weather events like this are becoming more intense due to the climate emergency.

The Covid-19 pandemic is a wake-up call that we can no longer afford to encroach on and degrade our environment in the way that we have been doing.

Large long-term investors are already radically changing their definitions of risk; and definitions of ESG environmental, social and governance investment metrics are the vital discussions ongoing in these industries.

At the same time as the pandemic poses a risk to heavily-hit industries, and in itself flags up the materiality of environmental risk, the oil market is crashing, and stranded assets are becoming very short-term realities for investors. We need to understand that we live not just in an age of risk, but one of uncertainty, and plan accordingly for a renewal of business and the state not moving back to business as usual or to government as usual.

Cliff Taylor: Where will the money come from to pay for recovery and rebuilding? Does a bigger State mean more taxes?

Mariana Mazzucato: Money is a social technology and not an inherently scarce resource as the public has been led to believe. The inability to handle our common monetary technology to recover forcefully from the Great Financial Crisis is emblematic of our inability to use technological advancement to deliver a vigorous green transition.

The wealth of our nations comes from our ability to activate our resources to solve our problems and improve the way we use them through innovation and more mutualistic relationships between the public and private sector. Money is a crucial instrument to mobilise our common potential.

We should therefore meet the Covid -19 challenge with an upgrade of state investment banks and a general fiscal commitment to do whatever it takes and make sure to steer the spending via missions to solve our challenges rather than restore the status quo.

Restoring the unsustainable status quo is a major threat at the moment. Obviously, the euro zone faces its own financial challenges, as fiscal and monetary policy have been split apart only to be partly re-integrated via the quantitative easing policies by the European Central Bank. There is a need for additional institutional ingenuity to bring the euro zone up to fiscal speed of other developed economies.

When Roosevelt launched his sweeping New Deal programmes, he did not wait to find the money. The core point of macroeconomics is that spending equals income - and indeed creates the income. When the private sector is not spending, governments must do the spending or lower taxes to stimulate the spending.

Do not force taxes to come first, as it may be a futile task. Instead of asking where the money is going to come from, we should ask where are the physical and intellectual resources going to come from?

We urgently need a recovery that is transformational of the economic structures that constrain our decision-making in normal times. Why should I buy an electric vehicle if I cannot be sure to find a rapid charging station? Why should I buy an electric vehicle if I have to charge it with coal- or gas-based electricity?

Such a transformation is not a cost but an investment in a future of resilience, sustainability and better resource efficiency. This is long overdue, but the current disruption is an opportunity to break out of the path-dependency that has so far mired us in incrementalism. .

Mariana Mazzucato, is Professor in the Economics of Innovation and Public Value at University College London (UCL). She is also the Founding Director of the UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose. She is author of The Entrepreneurial State: debunking public vs. private sector myths (2013) and The Value of Everything: making and taking in the global economy (2018)

More:

The recovery needs to be a full-scale economic renewal - The Irish Times

The pandemic is very quickly teaching us whats important: health, love, food, a safe and comfortable home, creativity and learning, connectedness, and being able to get out into nature. Shouldnt those things be the pillars around which our societies are organised? The virus has also shown how it is possible to make drastic changes in an incredibly short space of time. Now we need to transform the structures of our societies so that changes whichput the brakes on climate disasterdont bring recessions, unemployment and poverty, but health, nourishment, time with our loved ones, safe and comfortable homes, opportunities to learn and be creative, and to be in nature.

This is not a pipe dream. Our interlinked economic, political and environmental crises are just as much crises of the imagination. Often when I suggest that we can do better than the status quo, the response I get is yes things are really bad, but whats the alternative communist Russia? We have been convinced that as a species we are incapable of creating good societies. But the idea that humans by our nature are selfish and greedy, that we have insatiable needs, is a lie. Our needs arefinite, satiable and unsubstitutable. The virus has taught us that. When given the opportunity, we want tohelp each other and contributeto the good of our communities.The virus has taught us that also.

We need transformation not just in our economies but across the whole of our societies from the economy and our politics, to our family structures and media and communications systems as all these social spheres are interlinked and all are fundamental to our well-being. And while were at it, we should think about the question of scale how are we all connected in this world and on what scale should we be thinking about new ways of organising these systems?

Not only can think along the lines of multiple social spheres but also multiple timescales at least two. We know that we have less than ten years to makeunprecedentedchanges to the ways our societies are run if we are to halt the climate catastrophe we are already in. But we dont have to limit our imaginations to the next ten years. The changes put in place over the coming decade as epic as they will be in themselves might be just a jumping off point for something even more marvelous. Its not that we have to have a blueprint for what this future will look like, its about well and truly breaking the chains of TINA (There Is No Alternative) andcapitalist realism, and opening up our imaginations to other, better, possible worlds.

So, what might these good societies look like, and how can we get there?

We are heading for thebiggest global economic crisissince the Great Depression, bigger than after the financial crash in 2008.Half a billion peoplecould fall into poverty. What kind of a daft system means that if we put the brakes on and calm down for a few weeks the whole thing implodes? Sadly, this is the exact same dynamic that has brought on our existential climate and environmental crisis. At the same time,big pharmaand others are set to profit from the death and suffering being caused by the coronavirus, just as the fossil fuel industry, airline industry, and finance sector have profited from environmental breakdown.

Transformative change over the next ten years has to be aboutGreen New Dealsthat will create millions of high paying public sector jobs insulating homes, building renewable technology and constructing green and affordable public transit. How will this be paid for? Taxes, for a start including wealth taxes. At the moment, taken as a whole, our tax systemsareregressive, with less well off people paying a higher proportion of their income than the rich. This needs to be reversed. And of course, the trillions lost to tax havens need to be recovered and corporate tax abuse prevented in the future, partly through aunitary tax on multinationals.

A rethink of work is also central to building good societies. Just as the virus has made it painfully clear who key workers are, it has also shown that much of the work we do is not particularly necessary or enjoyable we do it purely to get money to survive. This wasteful work is not just socially useless but isactually destructive, both to our wellbeing and to our natural environment. We need to be able to get rid ofbullshit jobswithout millions falling into poverty.Universal basic incomessitting alongsideuniversal basic servicesandshortening the working weekare good starting points.

Perhaps most importantly, we need topivot wildly away from GDP growthtowards more care-based economies. This means reducing consumption and waste for the better off, and being a lot smarter about what and how much we produce globally. We can be much more efficient in our resource use by using thedecentralised planning toolsalready used bymultinational corporations. For most of those who will need to reduce consumption, this is unlikely to be much of a sacrifice. The drive to constantly accumulate profits means that pointless trash is pushed onto us through advertising, and obsolescence is built-in to the products that we do really want or need. Building things to last and having social spaces where it isnt compulsory to consume would make our lives better.

The key principle in all this is removing profit from a significant portion of economic activity, and bringing democracy in. It isnt economic growth that drives environmental destruction and inequality. It is the driver that lies behind economic growth: capital accumulation and the profit motive. This does mean, then, transitioning away from capitalism to postcapitalist societies.

The return ofpublic ownershipneeds to be high on the agenda, but in a more democratic, decentralised way than we have seen before. In particular,the foundational economyshould be brought into democratic control. We know what is foundational because the virus has shown us healthcare, food, water, energy, education, housing, care. Our good societies will also be freed from the tyranny of private finance through public and mutual bankingas well asbanning most speculationandclosing tax havens.Money creation too, can come into public and democratic control.

But this doesnt mean replacing capitalism with state socialism. To begin with, we can think about whatHilary Wainwright callsdiversified ecologies of ownership, where co-operatives and community owned enterprises sit beside publicly owned initiatives. The example she gives is a combination of local energy co-operatives and regional public energy companies in the framework of a cap on energy prices and a publicly owned national grid all based on renewable energy.

Later down the line we can further reduce the role of the state, or, hell, why not think about removing the state entirely? The founder of social ecology,Murray Bookchin, wrote that the state institutionalised hierarchy, and with capitalism, state domination and bureaucracy reached into every corner of society. While we may think of capitalism more as the absence of the state in favour of the market, in reality, the domination of the market is impossible without a domineering state to impose it.

Bookchins vision for a good society is for a sort of confederalism where small-scale communities manage their own provisioning systems, working in partnership with other communities where necessary. Resources, or what he calls the means of life arent owned by anyone, they form a commons based on the principle of usufruct everyone is free to use them as long as they do not damage or deplete them. The principle of the irreducible minimum means that everybody is entitled to the means of life no matter what they contribute an even more generous maxim thanMarx famousfrom each according to his [sic] ability to each according to his needs!

Versions of eco-feminism have similar ideas, of eco-sufficiency or the subsistence perspective, in which communities are autonomous and relatively self-sufficient. This doesnt have to mean going back to the stone age, though we might want to tone down calls for full automation. Technology will have an important role to play, but the principle has to be that the technologies we develop will enhance rather than harm our relationship with nature. What is certain is that technology wont save us while the current drivers of the economy capital accumulation and the profit motive remain in place.

This brings us to the question of scale. One of the most important lessons this virus has taught is that we are all connected. It has reached almost every corner of the world and attacks the body in the same way. Countries are having towork togetherto pool resources and develop a vaccine, although there is also the reality of intensifiedtrade warsandcompetition.

But the impacts of the crisis are far from egalitarian. The same economic process that allowed the virus to spread so far so quickly neoliberal globalisation also createsgrotesque wealth for some and hardship for many;maldevelopmentin some parts of the world and underdevelopment in others. Why should our life chances be so far determined by the accident of where we are born? Why would we want to live in societies that benefit some people in some placesat the expenseof other people in other places? The good societies that we build now, during the great pause, need to work for everyone in the world.

Theres a tension when were thinking about scale when formulating alternatives, should we be thinking global or local? The universal or particular? Our current capitalist economy is certainly global there probably isnt a person in the world whose life isnt integrated into it somehow, though in different ways in different places. So it makes sense to start there.

This means that Green New Deals need to beGlobal Green New Deals, not ones based on extractivism andgreencolonialism. Similarly, if were thinking about living wages, why shouldnt they be global living wages? Since capital is transnational, maybeunions should be transnational. Wealth taxes should beglobal wealth taxes. We also need to thinkabout reparationsand far-reaching technology transfers.Open borderscould help focus minds on global justice, eradicate hostile environments and eliminate the detention centres and refugee camps that the virus has revealed to be houses of horror.

Crucially, structural adjustment programmes and the Washington Consensusneed to be replaced though preferably not by Chinasimply replacingthe US as the global hegemon. Yanis Varoufakis and his colleagues propose a new global economic architecture whereby, to keep the world economy in balance, national surpluses and deficits would both be taxed, with the funds raised being channeled into a Global Green New Deal. They also want to changeproperty rights, so that 10% of the shares of large companies are placed into a global equity fund and the dividends disbursed as a global universal basic dividend. Over time this percentage could increase until we end up with a kind of world-wide market-based socialism.

An alternative vision is fordeglobalisation. Instead of entire countries being turned into massive export processing zones, Walden Bellos deglobalisation paradigm advocates production primarily for local markets. Trade and industrial policy including subsidies, quotas and tariffs would be used to protect local markets from flooding by corporate-subsidized commodities and strengthen manufacturing sectors. Measures for land and income redistribution would be taken, helping to create vibrant local markets and local sources of financial investment. Meanwhile, the multilateral bodies like the WTO, World Bank and IMF that have been vehicles for neo-imperialism would be replaced by regional institutions built on cooperation instead of free trade and capital mobility.

Another world is possible was the slogan of the anti-globalisation movement | Image: democraciaglobal

Some are squeamish about the idea of deglobalisation, worrying that it means nationalist isolationism and indeed, that is what the term has come to stand for in its nativist iteration (though this is wildly different from what Bello has in mind). More fundamentally, there is a question mark over whether a system of nation-states competing within the framework of global capitalism no matter how attenuated that version of capitalism might be can ever really transcend economic imperialism and trade wars (or actual wars for that matter).

Yet shortening supply chains, at least for essential items like food, seems like a no brainer from an environmental as well as a global justice perspective. Lets carry on our thought experiment of imagining a future beyond the nation-state: instead of states competing for resources on a lopsided playing field, we can envision the stewardship of commons by local communities that are relatively self-sufficient but networked transnationally. There would be no need to squabble over resources because instead of a logic of scarcity there would be a logic of abundance. This doesnt mean that everyone in the world would suddenly be able to fly every week or own a Ferrari we are living within planetary boundaries here. Murray Bookchin wrote that real abundance is not about being able to satisfy an infinite parade of desires, but having the collective autonomy tochoose our needs(i.e. decide whats important), and work out how to satisfy them together therein lies true freedom.

The response to Covid-19 has put us at risk fromencroaching authoritarianismand has further exposed the lack of trust people already had in their political systems. In liberal democracies, the decades of neoliberalism havehollowed outdemocratic institutions, as power has been transferred to transnational corporations. Politics has become about marketing and spin, and citizens are treated as consumers.

Meanwhile,spreading democracyhas been a cover for the invasion and occupation of territories that were supposed to be sovereign byimperial powers. Marxists, anarchists and feminists have long asked whether capitalism is compatible with democracy at all. The gap between what liberal democracy promises in theory and what it has delivered has led to many people punting on illiberal democracy instead, withanti-democraticleadersbeingdemocratically elected.

If we are going to put the brakes on the ecological and social catastrophes under way, we will need to democratise democracy. Its not for nothing that one of Extinction Rebellions key demands is for citizens assemblies. The rapid transformations we will need to our social structures will have to be decided upon collectively, if we are to avoid eco-authoritarianism or eco-fascism.Peoples assemblies, town halls, participatory budgeting,citizens juries, and properly resourced, empowered local governments will be key.

Democratising democracy obviously meanstaking big money out of politics, but it also means removing the line that separates politics from the economy. In liberal democracies, huge swathes of society are out of reach of the decision-making powers of the citizenry. That will need to change. As discussed, we will need workplace and economic democracy, where fundamental decisions about provisioning are made by everyone, not just ruling elites.

The question of scale arises again here. Democracy isnt really democratic if the resources people are enjoying in one part of the world are actually being pilfered from other parts of the world, or if they are producing environmental impacts felt elsewhere. One proposal to ameliorate this is to introduce democracy on a global scale through aworld parliament, where every citizen in the world would be able to directly elect representatives.

Others have criticised the idea of a world parliament asuniversalising a singleversion of politics and imposing it onto the entire globe, thereby reproducing the colonising drive it is supposed to combat. They prefer the idea of unity in diversity in the Zapatistas words: one world where many worlds fit. In this vision, the issue of scale would be addressed horizontally rather than vertically with autonomous communities working together to solve large-scale problems.

Citizens assemblies and town halls are about supplementing representative democracy with more direct forms of democracy. Down the line, we could take this much further. The horizontal, confederalist approach described above has direct democracy at its core. Direct democracies already exist ChiapasandRojavaare famous examples, and there are many impulses towards what Ashish Kothari calls Radical Ecology Democracy. Here, the commune or neighbourhood is the basic political unit, with people meeting face to face to make the decisions that affect their lives. For larger-scale issues, there are representative local assemblies and municipal councils, but these are accountable to the grassroots level.

The Democratic Confederalist project in Rojava is in peril after the Turkish incursion into the region of northeastern Syria in 2019. | Source: The New Inquiry

These movements reject the nation-state as the locus of sovereignty, viewing the state as inextricably bound up with environmental destruction, repression and patriarchy. Radical Ecology Democracy instead advocates local custodianship of the commons combined with bio- and eco-regionalism. Crucially, to avoid repeating the patriarchy of the state, these direct democracies must be and are explicitly feminist,enshrining gender equalityin their constitutions and instituting women-led committees on womens rights. And again, thinking about local communities as the locus of sovereignty doesnt have to mean parochialism and isolation. On the contrary, going beyond the nation-state can mean removing borders to the free flow of people and ideas.

Globally,women carry out 76% of unpaid labour mainly domestic and care work, which takes place inside the home. The family home can also be a dangerous and even deadly place for queer people and women, asone in three womensuffer violence, usually by an intimate partner. The pandemic hasintensified these problemsand brought them further into the light. Given the reaction toan article we publishedon ourEconomy on the coronavirus and the family, challenging this most fundamental of institutions can make people, erm, emotional. If youre lucky, the family is also the source of deep bonds of love the stuff that makes life worth living, another thing that the virus has driven home.

But, as the authors ofFeminism for the 99% point out, the unique feat of capitalism was to separate the public from the private, delegate the private to women and banish it to the home. Without the unpaid and invisible domestic, care and emotional work of women, the capitalist economy would not be able to run. Because it is women who carry out most of this reproductive labour, it is also women who are on the front line of environmental breakdown; as they are the main providers of food and fuel, they are worse impacted by flooding and drought.The U.N. estimates80% of those who have been displaced by climate change are women.

Under neoliberalism, women are being more and more squeezed, making up an increasing proportion of the paid workforce as well as doing the vast majority of unpaid work. This has led to the erection of vastglobal care chains, as women who can afford to outsource their unpaid work to less well off women, often from the global south, who have their own families to care for. These gendered and racialised structures need to be transformed.

At the very least, this has to mean free daycare available to all (paid for by highly progressive taxation), and paid parental leave that parents have the option to split equally. It also means closing gender pay gaps so it doesnt become the default option that the man keeps working while the woman takes maternity leave (for those lucky enough to be in that situation). Shortening the working week with no loss of pay can mean people of all genders have more time to take care of their reproductive labour. Universal basic incomes and a higher social wage (better public services) can provide recognition, support and some form of remuneration for reproductive labour. Again, we should be thinking about these rights and conditions on the global scale, as well as open borders that will help equalise pay globally, so people are not having to do other peoples reproductive work.

But we can go bigger than this, with a more comprehensive socialisation of reproductive labour. Thinkcommunity kitchensand community child-raising. Collective housing andcommunal livingfor those who want it. One other thing Covid made painfully clear in my privileged circle when the news came that schools and daycare centres were about to close, my women friends who were going to have to look after their own kids for an indefinite period of time entered a state of dread. Sophie Lewiss call for Full Surrogacy Now! is a call to stop theprivatisation of the family and child-raising, so that all children have multiple strong bonds with adults and other children and can feel safe and loved both in their homes and in their wider surroundings.

Aspirin commerical from 1937. Women still do the vast majority of unpaid domestic, care and emotional work. | Photo: genibee, CC by 2.0

And its not just about the young. Care and residential homes have become spaces of terror, showing quite how inhumane they were to begin with. This is not to blame those working there, who are often on minimum wage, overworked and under-supported. But instead of outsourcing care, wouldnt we prefer to be cared for in our extended families of choosing by those we love and who love us?

At the moment, one kind of family formatis privileged think tax breaks and citizenship rights for married couples. Why should there be one way of having a family that is sanctioned by the state while those in other kinds of relationships are excluded from those benefits? That sounds like the nanny state to me. The point is not to impose one family structure on everyone but to create societies that are flexible enough to accommodate a wide variety of different family forms and kinship structures, supported by economic and political structures that allow these bonds to flourish.

The virus has made it clear how important it is both to be able to connect with others and access knowledge and information. At the same time, the viral spreading of misinformation, and the misuse of data by corporations and governments bent onmass surveillanceshows how deep the crisis of our media and communications systems runs.

We know the dangers involved with huge corporations sucking up data on the most intimate aspects of our lives how they collaborate with governments to enable wholesale spying, crackdowns on democratic freedoms, and dystopianpredictive policingandfacial recognitionpractices; how voters aremanipulated during elections; howdiscrimination is built into algorithms; how the data-based business modelencouragesfake news, polarisation and hate; and how these companies resolutely dodge tax.

The data frenzy is also wreaking havoc on the environment a 2015 report found that data centres areresponsible for about 2 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, putting them on par with the aviation industry. And its exacerbating global inequality. It is China and the US who are set toreap the biggest rewardsfrom AI, while Africa and Latin America will see the lowest gains. It is unlikely that the profits accrued to multinationals based in the US or China from data mined in lower-income countries will trickle down to those supplying that data. The concept ofcultural imperialismhas been around for decades. Now we can also speak of data imperialism. Again, it is the profit motive thats at the bottom of all this.

And again, democratisation is at the heart of the solution. When it comes to data, Anita Gurumurthy proposes a newdata constitutionalism, where through a collective process we decide what data should be collected and what should not, and how that data is used, culminating in an international covenant on data rights. The advertising industry has too often avoided scrutiny in discussions about data and surveillance. After all, the main reason these companies gobble up our data is to sell advertising back to us. We also need a public conversation about how much advertising we want in our media and communications systems and alternative ways of funding these systems. Which also means a conversation about ownership.

Instead of trying to regulate and tax the social media behemoths, some are calling tonationalise them. (Or could we think about internationalising them?) Better still, we can create public alternatives. In the UK, the BBC isunder threatfrom the Conservative government. There are serious problems with the BBC but the solution is not to abolish or impoverish it. One proposal is to create aBritish Digital Corporationinstead, which would include socially useful platforms that are subject to democratic control. It would form part of a diversified media ecosystem, sitting alongsidemedia collectivesthat are supported by public funds,paid for through progressive taxes. There are valid concerns here about governments having too much control both over information and our data. However, with proper structures in place this risk can be reduced, making such enterprises recipients of public money but run independently.

And in the long run, can we think about our media and communications systems beyond both the market and the state? If a kind of democratic confederalism and commons-based approach would be desirable for our economies and politics, could this also work for media and communications?Data commonsalready exist, which enable members to pool their data, anonymously, for social benefit. This philosophy could be extended to other parts of our media.The P2P and open sourcemovements help point the way to alternative ways of organising these systems so that they are not enclosures for profit-making but are autonomous, participatory and accessible to all.

At the same time, we can consider the benefits of unplugging, at least for many. The lockdown has exacerbated thedigital divide, showing just how essential connectivity has become. As with all other means of living well, connectivity needs to be shared better and its footprint on our environment greatly reduced. There are wonders to be found online that we all want access to. But lets face it, most of the stuff out there is just rubbish to make us spend time and money. Many of us would be happy to spend a bit less time glued to our screens, especially if we had the time, opportunity and energy to do other enjoyable things which we could if we reorganised our economies, politics and family setups.

Given where we are, it seems almost impossible that we will be able to create good societies, let alone within the next ten years. Yet this is exactly what we must do, if we are to prevent things quickly deteriorating into something even worse.

The even better news is that all the people who have joined mutual aid groups during the pandemic are now part of this tsunami of change.

Nobody said it was going to be easy. This will be one heck of a struggle because it means reversing the decades-longclass warthat has transferred wealth and power to the top, and those with vested interests in the way things are wont give up without a fight. But there are a lot more of us than there are of them, so its a fight we can win.

The good news is that there areliterally millionsof grassroots groups and organisations all over the world trying to change things, whether they are fighting for climate justice, economic rights, womens and trans rights, or global justice. The even better news is that all the people who have spontaneously initiated or joined mutual aid groups during the pandemic are now part of this tsunami of change. Reaching out to each other and keeping up momentum is a key challenge to all of us.

There are ongoing attempts to actively forge alliances across these struggles to create a movement of movements that builds capacity and momentum. Ideally, these movements would have allies in political parties representing their interests and winning elections. In this regard, recently we have had hopes and we have hopes dashed in different parts of the world. International alliances of fearless political parties created out of and pushed forwards bylinkedsocial movements is still something we can strive for.

Taking this idea further, there are fertile discussions taking place about the possibility of creating anew International.Sahan Karatasliargues for not one but two Internationals: a horizontal, fluid movement of movements and a vertical, structured world political party that would articulate the connections between all these movements, build unity out of their diversity, and represent the totality of their struggles. We return once more to the question of scale as well as structure the idea here would be to combine the locally rooted and horizontal with the global and vertical.

Many social movements arent waiting for the war to be won but are busy creating nowtopias in the present. From Rojava to Chiapas toFreetown Christiana, these places show that thereareviable alternatives, even in the most hostile of political conditions. Imagine what could be achieved given the right conditions? These might seem far removed from most people but its not difficult to find initiatives in every community, from local currencies to community gardens to communal kitchens. These projects are not only improving the lives of those who participate in them. They are strategically vital they build capacity and sow the seeds of future societies in the here and now.

Lastly, lets not forget about the power of ideas.Milton Friedmanfamously said that, during a crisis, the actions taken will depend on the ideas lying around. Since the last global crisis in 2008, a huge array of great ideas have been generated, forged in the heat of social struggles and by an ecosystem of new and established organisations. More work needs to be done to bring those think tanks and NGOs closer together to grassroots movements.

One of the aims of this essay has been to gather some of the ideas that are lying around and help fashion them into a vaguely coherent vision or multiple visions of the kinds of worlds we can and might want to live in. Its just a start and is part of a big conversation to which many are contributing. The coronavirus is taking our loved ones. It has shown us what is important and has shown us how short our societies fall of prioritising what is important. It has hit pause on our lives (at least, those of us who are able to pause).

Lets use this time to open our imaginations to what is possible, and start building better worlds.

Teaser photo credit: Photo: Antonio Marn Segovia, CC by 2.0

Visit link:

How to Fix the World - Resilience

As part of the stimulus package to revive the economy, the Union government has announced a slew of measures to boost production and reduce imports of coal. It has liberalised the sector, curtailed the monopoly of Coal India Limited (CIL), and has announced an investment of Rs 50,000 crore for coal transportation infrastructure. All this has been done to double coal production in the next four years from 730 million tonnes in 2019-20 to 1.5 billion tonnes in 2023-24. The question is: Can India afford such a massive increase in coal consumption?

Till three years back, coal was the cheapest source of electricity. Then in May 2017, the solar power tariff nosedived to Rs 2.62/kWh 20% lower than the coal based power tariff of NTPC and changed the energy market forever. Since then the coal power prices have kept increasing because of the increase in coal mining and transportation costs, while the costs of renewable and energy storage systems have continued reducing on the back of global and local innovations.

Just three weeks back, the Solar Energy Corporation of India awarded a project to ReNew Power to supply 400 MW of renewable energy, round the clock, at a tariff of Rs 2.90/kWh. Very few, if any, new coal power plants can compete with this tariff. In fact, the business case to install a new coal power plant is fast vanishing with such steep reduction in the prices of renewables with storage.

The business case entirely erodes if one includes health and environmental costs. Coal is the single largest source of air pollution and CO2 emissions in India. About half of all the CO2 emissions come from burning coal, and coal power plants account for 60% of particulate and 50% of sulphur dioxide emissions of the entire industrial sector. Deaths and diseases due to air pollution cost India a GDP loss of more than 5% and coal-related pollution constitutes a significant proportion of this. If we add carbon price and pollution cost to coal, then we should be shutting down even the existing power plants.

The private sector understands these risks and has practically stopped investing in coal power. According to a report published jointly by Global Energy Monitor, Sierra Club and others, a staggering 47,400 MW worth of coal power projects, mainly of the private sector, was scrapped in India in 2019. The private sector, instead, is now investing in renewable energy. In 2019, more than two-thirds of all the new power plants constructed in India were based on renewables, with the bulk of investments coming from the private sector and FDIs. The question, therefore, is why in the face of an overwhelming case against coal, the government is still promoting it?

The reason seems to be twofold: One, coal is viewed as the foundation of energy security and self-reliance (Atmanirbhar Bharat); and two, it is considered as a shovel-ready venture to revive the economy in parts of central and eastern India (about 25 districts) that are primarily dependent on coal for growth and employment. While these reasons can be justified as short-term expediency, they would become a liability very soon.

We need to understand that the investments made today will lock our economy to expensive coal for the next 20-30 years. This will limit our scope of innovation and reduce the pace of transition to clean and cheap renewable energy. We will, therefore, be paying a high cost of energy even when much more affordable options would be available. Can India, which already has one of the highest costs of energy in the world, afford this?

As far as coal mining areas are concerned, they have been suffering from resource curse for decades. Most coal districts are polluted and poor with some of the worst human development indicators.

More coal mining will perpetuate the status quo. The need, therefore, is of economic diversification and a just transition plan for these districts to reduce their dependence on coal.

If Covid-19 pandemic has taught us anything, it is that our current economic system is akin to sawing-off the branch on which we are sitting. By investing in coal, we will exacerbate climate change, increase air pollution and make energy more expensive in the future. We need an Atmanirbhar Bharat, but atmanirbharta (self-reliance) must also be affordable and sustainable.

DISCLAIMER : Views expressed above are the author's own.

See the article here:

India is too poor to afford coal as a primary source of energy in the near future and that is aside from e - Economic Times