Deep Economy by Bill McKibben

Subtitled: The wealth of communities and the durable future

Let me start at the end of this very fine book, "The logic is fairly clear: in a world threatened by ever higher energy prices and ever-scarcer fossil fuel, you're better off in a relatively self-sufficient county or state or region. In a world increasingly rocked by wild and threatening weather, durable economies will be more useful than dynamic ones. And in both cases, the increased sense of community and heightened skill at democratic decision making that a more local economy implies will not simply increase our levels of satisfaction with our lives, but will also increase our chances of survival in a more dangerous world."

The beginning of the book made my eyes glaze over --a litany of the perils of growth -- economic growth -- but I give the man his due, he needed to do this to establish a baseline. It is the other four chapters of the book and the afterword, where the quote comes from that is riveting. He not only lays out the issues, but provides examples of simpler, community based solutions that strike at the heart of the problem. Increased determination to share in the American Dream by Americans and the rest of the world must be abandoned. The world is in peril -- perhaps not on my lifetime, but certainly in my niece and nephew's lifetime the world will be catastrophically altered if we do not change our practice.

Some provocative ideas:
" If we Americans can use less coal and gas and oil, we'll in effect free some of the atmosphere to absorb the carbon that the poor world must emit to meet basic needs. And, we should do more than that: having become rich by filling the air with our effluents, we should share some of that wealth with the developing world in the form of aid and technology. You can even put a number on how much money we're talking about. If you value carbon at current rates, each American owes the rest of the world between $273 and $1,086 a year for the privilege of polluting more than our fair share. At the lower end, that's about $73 billion annually which would accomplish an awful lot of "development." (Jules Pretty)

"The goal of life should not be limited to production," Thakur S. Powdyel, a senior official in the Bhutanese Ministry of Education, told Andrew Revkin of the New York Times. "There Is no necessary relationship between the level of possession and the level of well-being...We have to think of human well-being in broader terms...Material well-being is only one component. That doesn't ensure that you're at peace with your environment and in harmony with one another."

"In the twentieth century, two completely different models of how to run an economy battled for supremacy. Ours won, and not only because it produced more goods. It also produced far more freedom, far less horror.

In the twenty-first century, the choices are a little less stark. No one wants to do away with markets, or to centrally plan economies, outside of China, most people are committed to some form of democracy. But the choices are not less crucial, and the stakes may be even higher. The ecological upheaval promised by global warming is more disruptive than any military threat humans have yet faced."



What got us here? Massive consumption and waste. Reliance on fossil fuels, worship of efficiency at the expense of community.

What solutions exist? The solutions McKibben presents provides food for thought and examples that can spur action. Though he does not use the term "ecosystem services," may of the solutions he cites show ecosystems in balance which use the natural processes of of ecosystems to maintain balance.

This book is a must read.