MISSING the BEAR

Missing the Bear on green jobs:

Labour’s conference pamphlet (via @thedancingflea) talks about reviving the British economic future using green jobs but offers conflicting policy in two breaths.

“Many of our major cities and urban centres display a rich diversity of cultures. This strength can create tensions unless we manage the impact carefully. Increased diversity requires us to respect and honour difference while maintaining cohesion and the solidarity that underpins universal services and a healthy society. Migration remains an important driver of economic success. Our history is of a nation built on openness-- to trade, ideas, and talent-- and our future must be too.”(The Choice for Britain, 17)

Yes migration has done and it does, but Labour doesn't seem to quite grasp how. How, for example, does social cohesion feed diversity-- isn’t it an anathema? Several pages later Labour shows that it’s missed the bear:

“We believe a tough but flexible system, rather than an arbitrary quota or cap, is better for British business and the British economy.”(28)

Really? How is it that Labour expects to “see a significant rise in professional and high-skill jobs over the next decade” and realize returns from “rising demand from the middle-class in China and India, and increased demand for personalized goods and services in the UK.” (26) How is it that Labour expects that Britain will see economic returns from green innovation if its immigration policy blocks those with new ideas from migrating or even being educated there?

IPR and innovation guru Vivek Wadhwa writes in a new piece, “It is necessary to accept that R&D will migrate to areas of higher growth in order to tap into the new brains in those labor markets, and to gain better knowledge of those markets as well as tap into cultural and economic ties.” For this reason, he explains, it’s vital that developed countries (his article specifically sites the US, but the same can be easily applied to the UK and EU) allow freedom of movement between China and India, and the US in order to encourage the development of innovative ideas from business.



The points based system Labour has come up with is staunchly protectionist (also read here and here). In one breath Labour has admitted that in order to grow the British economy in the future it needs an infusion of brain power from outside its borders, and in the next said that that brain power is only welcome if it conforms to British culture. New ideas won’t be bourne from conforming to British culture. Isn’t that the whole point of soliciting new ideas in the first place-- to discover something that doesn’t conform?

The problem Wadhwa explains (in another new piece), “Only 7% of Chinese students, 9% of European students, and 25% of Indian students believe that the best days of the U.S. economy lie ahead. Conversely, 74% of Chinese students and 86% of Indian students believe that the best days for their home country’s economy lie ahead.”

In other words, the place to be for innovation and opportunity to add to and learn from new research is about to shift away from the US and UK’s universities. The US and the UK can either fight it, as they are doing, with tighter immigration policies (though kudoos to the EU for making visa policy extra accessible to Chinese), they are effectively nailing shut their own economic coffins. According to the American Chamber of Commerce in China, US visa policies have had severely negative effects on Chinese-American business relations:

“In our 2001 survey on the business environment in China, 39 percent commented that U.S. visa policies had a slightly negative or strongly negative impact on their business. In our 2004 survey, those suffering a negative effect went up to 70 percent. Asked if travel to the U.S. is substantially more difficult than to other countries, 55 percent responded that it is and 50 percent said they now send people to other countries for business meetings that would previously have been held in the United States.”

Unfortunately for the US and UK, China is already poised to lead the way renewables. India’s got plenty to offer in terms of social entrepreneurial innovations. But the British points systems and recent restrictions on US visas are keeping students out. Students who might share ideas, stay and teach for a few years, interact as postgrad students with undergrads, and feed more innovation in Western economies. The US and the UK are starting from behind already and doesn’t look like they are doing much to catch up.

Labour claims that it’s concerned about another “lost generation” of British workers, but it’s policies will lose that generation for Britain. And it isn’t just the visas: Labour’s policy on renewables has been all talk and no swagger. Lest we forget Vestas. And more could be done to sway the public, especially the rural public, towards wind power.

Labour hasn’t just missed the bear, they’ve mistaken it for a fox in green dress, asked it to dance, and are about to be eaten by it.

The HuffPo has reported today that Whole Foods has released a new film about food awareness. This seems odd to me, when Whole Foods doesn’t seem to understand in business practice the concepts it purportedly represents. And it’s more than just the healthcare row: it’s health and communities. I know, I used to work there.



I’m not disputing the nutritional facts in the film-- yes, I believe that artificial sweeteners are carcinogens and likely cause obesity by changing the way the hypothalamus functions. Yes, I know all about the importance of combining certain foods: like dairy with legumes and greens for optimal nutrient uptake. But for a company that claims to be a bastion of employer provided healthcare and raise awareness of healthy eating in poorer communities, Mr. Mackey has missed the bear.

In the “Here We Grow” film it sounds like Whole Foods is saying “eat organic” or it’s not healthy. Unless Whole Foods is prepared to lower the price of it’s organic produce (not likely) below market then poorer communities won’t be able to afford it.

Instead of talking about organic, let’s talk local. A lot of farmers where I call “home” (central Wisc) aren’t organically certified because they can’t meet the input costs but they use sustainable practices and no chemicals and would otherwise be called organic. Michael Pollan supports Whole Foods, saying that it’s often right about food-- but for every local farmer and regional product that they carry they import just as much, whether it’s Guavas from Brazil in some Boston stores, or gourmet cheese from France.

The way the green-economic revolution is being marketed (and Whole Foods is as much to blame as anyone else) buying local prices may end up exceeding “conventional” prices. How is it healthier to price consumers out of the market? Whole Foods markets over-consumption because it’s a luxury retailer, it has therefore done very little to re-value the economy. Even less when local businesses are considered: Whole Foods dominates it’s niche market. Driving local business out of business and therefore fundamentally changing local economic circuits is not promoting a green-economy.

And just because something is organic (or fair trade for that matter) doesn’t mean it’s healthy. I used to love to eat in the Whole Foods deli, but I made sure that I checked the nutrition labels because a lot of their deli and bakery products have absurd amounts of fat (13-20 in some muffins, 10+ in some soups) and sugar! Just because it’s organic raw cane sugar doesn’t mean that it’s made with twice as much sugar as there needs to be. The same goes for brown rice syrup (an ingredient in some product lines that Whole Foods carries). Whole Foods a bastion of healthy eating? Nope, don’t think so. I mean, props for cooking with actual fresh ingredients, but let’s leave out the excessive cream, huh?

And now to health care: yes, Whole Foods should be considered at the top of employer provided healthcare for full-time employees. And definitely brownie points for rolling over health care allowances annually and letting employees choose how to spend it. But, Whole Foods is one of those companies that doesn’t provide any benefits for part-time employees. The labour market in recent years has trended to employ fewer full-time workers so that businesses can weasel out of providing health care. The decline in unions, overall, has lead to a decline in employer provided benefits-- this is one of the things that has lead to the healthcare mess we’re in now. Whole Foods bans union participation amongst it’s employees. If Mackey really believed in employer provided health care he support union membership, allowing unions to regain lost ground on labour rights.

In his WSJ piece* he writes that government should no longer legislate what insurance companies must cover-- do I really need to explain why that’s a bad idea. If you let insurance companies decide what to cover, they won’t cover expensive diseases. Moreover, they may decide to link cancer to obesity, and if a patient weighs more than a certain threshold deemed “healthy” then their cancer might not be covered. Since Whole Foods foods aren’t always “healthy,” that seems a little bass-ackward, no?

Rob Smart at the HuffPo asks if Whole Foods is "losing it's sustainable lustre?" Losing, how about long gone.
Missing the Bear? I think so.

*I agree with some of the other things (i.e. transparency) that he says in the op-ed, but others (taxes and torts) I have no opinion because I don't know enough about them.

Last night BBC's NewsNight reviewed DEFRA's new report on food security. The report says, in a nutshell, global food production will have to increase by 70% and become local and sustainable. I blogged on this topic last month on my other blog, World Coloured Glasses. NewsNight missed the bear and instead of providing a useful and educated discussion let panic and uninformed comment prevail.

A few highlights:

Peter Kendall, director of the NFU (National Farmer's Union) said that countries that are selling their land to foreign interests do so by choice. No they don't. (Big surprise Kirsty missed this one) Developing country governments stripped bare for revenue by SAP's and limited in maneuverability by a global economic infrastructure that favours wealthy countries with high bond ratings don't have a choice. And you can bet the people of those countries aren't making the choice to sell that land. Their future food security isn't being looked after.

Phillipe LeGrain (don't even get me started) actually got away with saying we should buy more food from abroad, "I think we should have a free choice to buy British pork or Brazilian pork or pork from other countries, the point is we ought to have a choice." Yes, because free market economics has proven effective as of late. Government regulation? Absolutely unnecessary, just look at the financial crisis.

LeGrain went on, "Britain is a rich and densely populated country which means that land is very expensive... it means that farmers have an incentive to economize on land, to farm ever more intensively... and that leads to problems whether it's animal welfare or food safety problems." And a moment later, "I think we could import everything we need from Brazil." Kirsty, completely missing the bear moves to Kendall, "And now you're being asked to farm with less." (Rip hair from head, groan, roll eyes).

Hold up. First, we've glossed over the bit about land being more expensive because "Britain is a rich country." The British government could have protected agricultural land if it wanted to, if it didn't pander to global agribusiness. Second, farmers have to farm "ever more intensively" is a load of bullpuckey-- you can farm sustainably and sufficiently and make a living with the proper business and economic incentive structure and farming knowledge. If you don't believe me, go ask the Grass Point Farm cooperative in rural Wisconsin (I'm sure there are equivalent cooperative in the UK), or indigenous farming communities in Latin America, Asia, and Africa that have been farming sustainably for generations. Over time, it has been empirically proven crop yield decreases with intensive farming practices because you strip soil fertility. So no, British farmers aren't being asked to "do more with less," they are being asked to farm sustainably with carbon neutral techniques.

Maybe NewsNight could have used the segment time for a useful explorative discussion of sustainable farming techniques, the Slowfood movement, and economic revaluation that would allow for such systemic change. Instead fear mongering-- protect your food, fetch the pitchforks, trade protectionism, subsidize agrobusiness to buy up (more) land in developing countries. I was waiting for a population control pundit to pop up and start talking about birth rates in Africa and sterilization...err... I mean family planning policy from the 1960's and 70's.

Missed the Bear NewsNight? Yes, yes I think so.

According to Stewart Brand by 2050 80 percent of the world’s population will dwell in urban areas. By 2015 the developing world will have eight of ten of the biggest cities per capita. These cities will develop three times faster than cities in developed countries and on average will be nine times bigger. Urban areas consume massive amounts of resources. What’s missing from the climate change discourse is this: we cannot continue to consume the way that we have, in the West or as a species. And the trouble is the West is the paradigm. The Western model is what people in the developing world still aspire to. G8 leaders have declared that the answer to global recession is to hope that Chinese and Indian consumers pick up the slack in global demand by consuming more. Is this sound economic policy?


Consider: global economic growth is measured in terms of consumption (consumer demand and retail sales, especially for the model: Western economies) and moves in lock step with carbon emissions. Climate change experts from scientists, to economists, to politicians say that Western countries cannot continue to consume at the level that they have, that developing countries will have to pursue a different path to development that not only involves cleaner emissions but a different, ultimately lower consumption pattern. But global economic recovery is still talked about in terms of new car sales, retail earnings, new homes built. New, new, new, buy, buy, buy. Is your brain doing that thing where it feels fuzzy in the middle? Mine is.

This week there are several stories that tap into the miss-match in green economic recovery logic: First, a new study finds that warmer years see less economic progress in developing countries. Second, there is the revelation that credit markets are anti-green. Sustainable consumer behavior (say paying a cobbler to fix your favorite pair of shoes rather than buying a new one or a whole bunch of charges at a thrift store) is seen as a “warning sign” to credit card companies of declining card holder revenue. Third, corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become sustainabawashed (yes, I’ve just made up this word). For the most part, according to CSR expert Andrew Newton, the concept “has become shorthand way of saying a company’s ethical behavior is only useful if it preserves or enhances the company’s bottom line (paraphrase).” He is quoted in an article on the Corporate Eye explaining that the true spirit of CSR doesn’t go beyond charitable donations and that most companies could do more if they were willing to take a cut in profit.

Taking a cut in profit—like taking a cut in growth? China regularly sees annual GDP growth of around 10% (conservatively) give or take. That’s a lot of growth. There is also tacit understanding that these numbers are doctored. And thus the essence of the problem: developed countries for the last decade or so average around 1-2% annual economic growth, so China’s doctored average of 10% looks really huge and they want it to. The UN estimates that for African economies need to grow by an average annualize rate of 6% per year in order to maximize aid effectiveness. But how much of that growth is sufficient but not necessary? We are used to huge percentages 6-13% of GDP growth, and China isn’t even “developed” yet. How much growth is enough? Could we get used to smaller numbers if economic growth was valued properly like Andrew Simms, Aubrey Meyer, Ann Pettifor, Colin Challen, et al. suggest?

This economic revaluation should be part of the green recovery discourse. But so far most of what I’ve seen is green(washed) marketing, call it marketing and materializing climate change. For profit. The governments don’t get it, nobody involved in pre-Copenhagen negotiations is talking about it (at least not openly), and the economists are still talking about economic recovery in terms of retail sales and consumer demand. The mainstream press isn’t making any noise, having once again Missed the Bear. As the second world moves into the first, developing countries develop, they must do so on a better paradigm than the Western one. And Westerners will have to learn to consume differently.