Part 6. Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution
The authors of Natural Capitalism argue that it is needed to "create the next industrial revolution." They warn that if we continue to ignore the value of natural capital, i.e., nature's life-support systems for humankind, there will come a time when there won't be any more life support. Doomsday may be a century or two away, but the quality of life up to that point will have deteriorated at an increasing pace.
Pursuing four central strategies of natural capitalism, these authors say, will enable commercial enterprises and communities to operate as if all forms of capital were important. The core strategy is that of radically increasing resource productivity by being more efficient, less wasteful in how natural resources are extracted and used.
The second they call "biomimicry" that involves eliminating waste in the making of things by imitating biological processes in the manufacturing process. The third is to change the relationship between producer and consumer from one based on goods and purchases to one based on a "flow of economic services" that will in turn deemphasize possession as a measure of affluence and emphasize that well-being depends on the "continuous receipt of quality, utility, and performance." The fourth involves "reinvesting in sustaining, restoring, and expanding stocks of natural capital."
But America doesn't need the next industrial revolution. America needs a new and better capitalism that enfolds industry without its corpocracy. That's what America desperately needs!
Hawkins, P., Lovins, A., & Lovins, LH. Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution. 1999.
Part 7. The Uncommon Commons
Peterr Barnes co-founder, president, or a director of various socially responsible businesses, wants "capitalism 3.0" to replace "capitalism 2.0," the existing economic "operating system." He complains that corporations, with no resistance from "our" government, are privatizing the commons, profiting from it and externalizing the costs.
He defines "the commons" as assets we all share by inheriting or creating them together and subdivides them into three sectors, nature, community, and culture. Together they represent our "common wealth" (a most insightful concept), in contrast to our "private wealth," the latter representing all the property we inherit or accumulate individually. Private wealth collectively in the U.S. was estimated to be around $48.5 trillion in 2005. What do you think our total American common wealth is? Economists can't begin to estimate it in its entirety, but what they can estimate, Barnes tells us, comes to about $70 trillion. Is it any wonder then why, as Barnes asks, corporations on the one hand take valuable stuff "worth trillions of dollars" from the commons for short-term profit and on the other hand dump bad stuff into nature's commons and pay nothing?
His proposal relies heavily on the idea of property rights because our U.S. Constitution guarantees them, they shape economies, they produce value or wealth, and, most importantly, there's no requirement that they be concentrated in profit-maximizing hands, thus opening up the possibility of "propertizing" the commons without privatizing it (another very insightful idea). He proposes that the government assign common property rights to institutions, distinct from government and corporations that would be set up as trusts to manage the common property. A few such trusts already exist in the U.S, such as a trust in Marin County, California where ranchers can sell easements to it. For natural assets with their limited sources, the institutions would need to be capable of limiting their use. For the other two sectors with their endless potential, public access would need to be maximized and public usage fees minimized.
He introduces the idea of "commons tax credits" as a means for funneling more money into trusts by raising taxes in the uppermost tax bracket and giving its wealthy taxpayers the choice either to pay the extra tax to the government or to one or more qualified trust funds.
Barnes adapts the economist's concept of rent, or money paid because of scarcity, to his proposed trusts for nature. The trusts would sell pollution rights to polluters and get the rent in return. The trusts would limit the number of rights sold to increase the cost of their rent. For corporate polluters the cost would be high enough to create an incentive to pollute less. Some of the rent would be converted into per-capita dividends for consumer citizens. Consumers of pollution-laden products would get back smaller dividends. Moreover, rent would be recycled from over users, who tend to be the wealthier ones, to under users, who tend to be the poorer ones. This shifting of income would help alleviate what Barnes calls a pathological flaw of capitalism 2.0, the wide income gap between high and low-income groups.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).