PowerSwitch

I have been looking at our sustainability problem for a few years now, but (like most people) was not aware of just how bad things were. Since finding out about peak oil, I have stepped up the search for answers. A while ago I came across the simultaneous policy (SP).

Yes, we ought to look to reducing our fossil fuel dependence (and our overall ecological footprint), but at the same time as personal changes we also need to encourage our government(s) to take greater action. There are also many other reasons to adopt SP, such as reduction in armed forces / WMD and monetary reform. SP seems to be the ideal method of getting it done. It it worth noting that SP is still in it?s early phase and is open to be influenced. Want to get the Uppsala depletion protocol implemented? Why not try the SP method.

From the website:

Today, global markets and corporations so comprehensively overpower individual nations that no politician or political party dares make the first move to solve global problems for fear of putting their own nation at a significant economic competitive disadvantage. Though legislators know that serious world problems such as global warming, monopolistic corporate power, poverty and environmental destruction all demand decisive action, they are loath to implement the policies needed to solve them. They legitimately fear that in today's liberalized global economy, investors, corporations and jobs would simply pick up and leave for more congenial destinations. However good their intentions, governments feel bound to conform to a straitjacket of market? and business-friendly policies. That's why, whoever we vote for in the present system, little, if anything, changes.

The Simultaneous Policy

The Simultaneous Policy (SP) is our "people's globalisation policy": a work-in-progress that people who "adopt" SP are designing with other Adopters around the world. Adopting is open to everyone and is free. All Adopters are invited and encouraged to join in discussing, developing and approving the policies to tackle global problems.
SP is to be implemented when all or sufficient nations are ready to do likewise - simultaneously. Simultaneous implementation means threat of disinvestment loses its power. Countries can move from a system of competition to co-operation.

Here?s how the SP strategy works

By adopting SP, we join with Adopters in our own and other countries who undertake to vote in future elections for ANY political party or candidate, within reason, that signs a pledge in principle to implement SP alongside other governments. Alternatively, if we still have a preference for a particular party, our adoption signifies our desire for our party to support SP.
For a politician, signing the pledge to implement SP does not require a change of policies until it is time to implement SP, and so carries no risk. But by moving the world a step nearer to implementation, the politician hastens the day when global politics shifts from competition to co-operation and global problems, about which many care deeply, can be addressed effectively. On the other hand, failure to sign the pledge could cost the politician their seat and hand it to someone who will support SP. With many seats decided by small majorities, the SP voting bloc could make all the difference.
SP is already gaining public and political support. It is not an alternative to other campaigns, but a parallel strategy, enabling us to look beyond fighting to change existing systems to joining with people around the world and collectively answering the question: How do you want the world to be?

GD

In the interest of keeping this post (as) short and sweet (as possible), here is the current policy proposal in headlines form (except for sections 1.4 and 1.6, for reasons which will become obvious). (You can read it in full by following the link: ) It is worth while noting that the international simultaneous policy organisation (ISPO) have only been going since 2004 and that the policy is still in its early phase.

The International Simultaneous Policy Proposal

1st Stage: Stabilisation Measures (Implementation Year 1)

1.1: Reregulation of global financial markets and monetary reform.
1.1.1 Monetary Reform which entails the restoration of the issuing of all new non-cash money (i.e., credit) to the State of each nation with appropriate safeguard provisions.
1.1.2 The Tobin Tax.
1.1.3 Abolition of tax havens.
1.2: The complete cancellation of Third World debt.
1.3: Abolition of party-political funding by any for-profit organisations.

1.4: Implementation of a truly effective Kyoto Protocol.
It is widely acknowledged that if the Kyoto Protocol is to have any significant impact on global warming, then the emissions reductions will need to be ten or more times greater than those presently called for in that agreement. Such an increase, however, cannot be achieved while individual nations fear the economic consequences of a competitive disadvantage compared to nations, such as the USA, who choose not to participate. This is why all nations would need to implement the necessary measures simultaneously under SP.

One existing proposal under which could be included in SP is "Contraction and Convergence," put forward by the Global Commons Institute

For more on the Kyoto Protocol, click here.

For more on climate change, click here.

1.5: Abolition of weapons of mass destruction and reductions in conventional weapons.
1.5.1 The dismantling and banning of all nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass-destruction.
1.5.2 Simultaneous reductions in conventional forces and weapons.
1.5.3 Establishment of Multinational UN Force

1.6: A Global Tax on Fossil Fuels.
Under SP, higher fuel prices could be implemented simultaneously around the world, which would cause long-distance transportation to become more expensive but simultaneous implementation would not affect any nation?s competitive position. The effects would be to:

* Help reduce transport-related pollution and global warming.
* Reduce transport congestion.
* Conserve precious fossil fuel reserves.
* Encourage development, commercialization and utilization of cleaner renewable energy sources.
* Reduce the cost of locally produced goods compared to those coming from afar, thereby promoting local economies and local jobs all over the world (localisation).
* Raise significant tax revenue to fund poorer countries and/or to compensate oil-producing countries adversely affected by such a tax.
* Reduce pollution-related health problems and the consequent burden on public health provision.

We await suitable detailed policy proposals from expert individuals or NGOs.


1.7: Implementation of the Precautionary Principle

2nd Stage: Further Measures (Implementation Years 2?15)
2.1: Measures to provide the necessary public accountability and responsible behaviour of major institutions and corporations.
2.2: A tax on turnover or a cap on the maximum permitted size of corporations.

3rd Stage: Institutional Measures for our Common Global Future
3.1 With the implementation of SP, humanity will solve or mitigate many of the key global problems it faces today. But inevitably we will face new problems as our future unfolds. For this reason, SP will include measures to establish institutions of democratic global governance and to reform those that already exist, such as the United Nations. Through these democratic institutions, new SP measures (or modifications to existing ones) will be formulated, agreed upon, implemented and enforced, globally and simultaneously, as the need arises.

The creation of these institutions ? the embodiment of SP ? will provide humanity with an established system of global democracy capable of safeguarding our common successful and sustainable future on Planet Earth.

You can make your own suggestions for SP policies by clicking here.

A while ago, I contacted the founder, John Bunzl, regarding peak oil and how SP could help the situation.
This is the communication:

Hello,

I have a question regarding simpol:

In the face of a decline in fossil fuel supplies as described in George Monbiot's article:

www.monbiot.com/archives/2003/12/02/the ... he-barrel/

This "peak oil" situation is coming within the next few years and will have dramatic implications for mankind.

So my question is:

How can Simpol help mankind cooperatively effectively to reduce our energy dependance and move toward sustainable society in a peaceful manner?

Best Regards,

Gareth

--------

Dear Gareth,

While I am of course aware of the Peak Oil situation, I am not familiar with the details and Simpol could certainly use expert in-put on these issues which currently we sadly lack.

Anyway, my broad answer to your question would be as follows: Our energy dependency on non-renewables could be dramatically reduced in two main ways, I feel.

Firstly, a restructuring of the global economy along the lines SP suggests would have a number of beneficial effects including, for example:

- Global taxes on fossil fuels would inhibit the world-wide transportation of all sorts of goods to and from all corners of the earth and would thus make local production and consumption more competitive. This would save a lot of energy (while having many other beneficial spin-off effects).

- Competition inevitably entails huge waste and duplication of capacity and energy. Much of this duplication could be eliminated if there were greater cooperation along the lines of SP. - Nearly all the energy, resources and money that presently goes into the manufacture of weapons would come to an end under SP because, apart from a UN force to keep the peace around the world and small national militias in cases of domestic emergency, there would simply be no need for them. The resulting saving in energy and the redirection of the money to more productive uses (such as investing in renewables) would be released.

Secondly, and as the last point above indicates, cooperation under SP would release huge resources for the development of renewable energy as well as for aiding energy efficiency, etc. These are just some ideas but, as mentioned, we would really need expert input to investigate these and other ideas in order to properly assess how great their effect would be.

SP could facilitate all of this peacefully but the question is whether humanity will sieze the opportunity it offers in time to avoid a chaotic and violent melt-down. The paradox is this: that for a peaceful transition to occur, a greater level of crisis is required before people will wake up: desperation is required! If and when that occurs, a rapid uptake of SP (or some other similar plan yet to be devised) could occur. But if the crisis becomes too critical too quickly, there is the distinct possibility that people will be overwhelmed and melt-down could then occur. Either way, it will be a close run thing. All we can do, I feel, is to try to get SP just far enough into the public consciousness around the world so that when imminent melt-down threatens, enough people and politicians will know that a solution is available and ready. If and when that occurs, peaceful change could come very quickly indeed.

Hope that goes some way to answering your question.

Best wishes,

John

GD

Hmm ... I?m a bit skeptical that any monetary reforms will work in the long run. Making money, generating profit etc. is behind a lot of today?s problems and results in an ever increasing expansion. I think we would probably be better off move to a moneyless economy, one that would maintain a balance with supply and demand, ecology and technology. I am also skeptical of any political solution as I think that politics only ends up serving the interests of the minority (the ones with lots of money). I think a better policy is to by-pass government and for groups to work together to build the future.

This is an interesting article on the theory that SP could be a part of the next stage of human evolution.

Evolutionary Biology and The Simultaneous Policy.

Evolutionary biologists are increasingly questioning the Darwinist view of evolution which describes it largely in terms of competition and natural selection in favour of a "post-Darwinist" stance that more properly recognises the crucial role of co-operation. But since major transitions from competition to co-operation occur only at certain critical and short-lived points of evolutionary crisis, it is perhaps unsurprising that co-operation?s significant role has hitherto been under-valued and under-explored. Today, as humanity increasingly faces a critical point of crisis in terms of our survival on planet Earth, it is essential that light now be shed on how co-operation has worked in evolution, and how it can be made to work now if we are to have a sustainable future.

?I don?t believe in the power of politics to change anything. I believe that the people change, and then the politicians follow suit? ~ Maxi Jazz.

isenhand wrote:Hmm ... I?m a bit skeptical that any monetary reforms will work in the long run. Making money, generating profit etc. is behind a lot of today?s problems and results in an ever increasing expansion. I think we would probably be better off move to a moneyless economy, one that would maintain a balance with supply and demand, ecology and technology.
I am also skeptical of any political solution as I think that politics only ends up serving the interests of the minority (the ones with lots of money). I think a better policy is to by-pass government and for groups to work together to build the future.

Hello isenhand, just to reply to you?

For sure, you do say ?in the long run?. It is my belief that money (has been in the past, and) can be sustainable (again) in the future. A future with no money may also be possible (I?m intrigued with Technocracy, but admit I haven?t had the chance to read much of it yet) and I wouldn?t rule it out.

But I?m wondering how you would get Technocracy implemented? How would it would sound to average Joe on the street, will he be convinced or will it scare him off? Can you get enough Joe?s and Jane?s on your side to make a difference, given the time that you have? (We can open this in a Technocracy discussion if you wish).

But in the mean time, at least, we must work with what we have, which would mean such stabilisation measures, as outlined in stages 1 and 2 above, in order to avoid a devastating crash (I?m not just talking about peak oil). I think that technocracy if it were to be implemented could go into stage 3 (apologies if this sounds nonsense, we could always discuss this in a technocracy thread).

As for politics ? we still need a framework for making/changing rules, that framework is government. So we will need government in one form or another. No government is anarchy (and how far has that movement got?)

Please remember that the SP strategy really is turning traditional politics right on its own head. This way it is the majority who dictate to the politicians. It may not be perfect (there is no such thing) but if we can improve the system and make the world a lot more equitable in the short term whilst laying the foundations for a better long term future, then it is worth pursuing.

But to put SP simply, it is by design NOT the solution to all of our problems. It is a method of achieving whatever solutions are deemed necessary.

It is also a parallel strategy, which means that it?s worth lending your support in the mean time (possibly influencing where it could go, if you wish) and at the same time try to get technocracy (or whatever you cause may be) implemented.

This can also be extended to those who might believe SP has a snowflake?s chance in hell of working ? why not support it anyway, as a ?plan B??

GD

Fascinating stuff. My first thought was: surely a simultaneous policy would in reality mean bringing the 'standards of living' - and I use the phrase with caution - in various countries more in line with each other? In saying this I fully accept that current discrepancies in infrastructure etc. are clearly not going disappear overnight.

The problem therefore is to get the richer populations of the world to willingly accept the idea of having a lower 'standard of living'. Obviously peak oil will set the scene, and increasingly dramatically at that, but a cultural change of mind would nonetheless require some very powerful moral, not merely political, leadership. This is before one even considers those with vested interests in the current system who would certainly try to oppose such a move through whatever means necessary... (Abolition of tax havens? Oh, how we laughed!)

'The American way of life is non-negotiable' - GWB

I'm not deliberately being pessimistic here - I'm just trying to appreciate the enormity of the task. I agree this is definitely the sort of direction we need to be heading in; it just seems that a revolution or two might be required to get there.

<<As for politics ? we still need a framework for making/changing rules, that framework is government. So we will need government in one form or another. No government is anarchy (and how far has that movement got?)>>

Yes, society is people + technology. Technocracy is for the technology and democracy for the people. I was meaning politics in the current system.

I have moved over to another thread

marknorthfield wrote:Fascinating stuff. My first thought was: surely a simultaneous policy would in reality mean bringing the 'standards of living' - and I use the phrase with caution - in various countries more in line with each other? In saying this I fully accept that current discrepancies in infrastructure etc. are clearly not going disappear overnight.

The problem therefore is to get the richer populations of the world to willingly accept the idea of having a lower 'standard of living'. Obviously peak oil will set the scene, and increasingly dramatically at that, but a cultural change of mind would nonetheless require some very powerful moral, not merely political, leadership. This is before one even considers those with vested interests in the current system who would certainly try to oppose such a move through whatever means necessary... (Abolition of tax havens? Oh, how we laughed!)

'The American way of life is non-negotiable' - GWB

I'm not deliberately being pessimistic here - I'm just trying to appreciate the enormity of the task. I agree this is definitely the sort of direction we need to be heading in; it just seems that a revolution or two might be required to get there.

It seems we?ve become so accustomed to special and vested interests riding roughshod over us, we not only accept it as given, but we have difficulty imagining another way. For sure it is no small undertaking, but I feel it is necessary. We are facing a global crisis that will take a global level of cooperation to solve (in order to avoid war / chaos).

It may take some adversity before enough people wake up and are willing to seriously look at the full implications of change to a sustainable future (not palatable to many consumerists I?ll bet, hence the GWB comment ? how many votes does Gore Vidal get?). It?s like John Bunzl said above: ?desperation is required?. Sentiment will change: GWB can?t negotiate with the nature of oil reserves!

Here?s why I believe it is highly implementable: There are also the "apathetic" who don't turn out to vote as there is hardly any difference between the parties. Giving people something to actually vote for should also get more people out to the polls.

Quote from the website:

Empowering the Protest Vote

In the twenty years that I have been afforded a vote, I am unashamed to say I have never used it. My theory was that not to vote was the best way of securing my protest to all or any political parties. As the years have gone on, my decision at 18 to adopt this tactic has been fuelled by what is happening in the world. As soon as I had digested your information I signed up [adopted SP] without hesitation.
Mark Davey
Entrepreneur, England

More information on the implementation strategy on the website on this link.

However, there may even be enough sentiment around to make it happen already (remember the Iraq war protests? And just watch the G8 ones coming soon in Edinburgh?)

We all seem to know where unchecked corporatism will get us, and have to ask ourselves are we going to let that happen? Shouldn?t we at least try to do something about it?

GD

Certainly we should try to do something about it GD! With that I wholeheartedly agree. I'm personally very inspired by the thoroughness of the proposal and I intend to discuss it with as many people as I can. To be sure, there always will be a significant minority who can imagine something different from the current system; my concern is how one ensures that this minority could be transformed into a significant majority, especially if mainstream media and the political establishment remain hostile.

Much as I want to think the best of human nature, I am not convinced that desperate times by themselves would make people suddenly appreciate the value of global co-operation. It appears that people tend to be charitable towards those they see as helpless, but when 'others' are perceived to be taking advantage of us in some way (however wrongheaded that perception may be) then the charity quickly becomes hostility - it's what the Daily Mail thrives on.

This is why I think there has to be a clear moral argument made for the proposals. Not necessarily a religiously based one, because I'm not going to fall into that old trap of letting religion stake sole claim to morality, but a moral argument nevertheless which inspires people to look beyond the nation state and at humanity as a whole; to look beyond their lifestyle expectations and recognise our collective fate; to look beyond monetary wealth as the primary measure of success in life.

If that happens to come from a religious figure such as Martin Luther King, Gandhi or Desmond Tutu, or even from a multi-faith group, then so be it, but ultimately that moral argument will have to be made for it to succeed - particularly in the US. (And the US is particularly important, yes?)

You've certainly hit upon (what is in my view) the biggie...

The grand old US of A. How to get them onside?

This is what they say on the FAQ...

"But how on Earth are you ever going to get SP adopted by a country like the USA? Both main parties are dominated by corporate interests so surely neither party is ever going to adopt?"

The strategy ISPO would use to gain adoption of SP by the main political parties would vary from country to country depending on the electoral system. In "first past the post" systems such as exist in the United Kingdom or in the USA, the way SP works is NOT by starting yet another political party but, instead, by bringing existing political parties into competition with each other.

...

So here's how SP might get adopted in the USA: You'll recall that at the last Presidential Election in the USA in 2000, the entire result was hanging on just 2000 votes in Florida. So now imagine the situation at a future election and suppose that, by that time, about 5000 voters in Florida had adopted SP and a similar critical number in the other key US states. Then, about two weeks prior to the election, the US Simultaneous Policy Organisation (ISPO-USA) would issue a press release announcing that all US adopters, according to their adoption pledge, will be voting for WHICH EVER of the Republicans or Democrats adopts SP first.

Assuming a similar knife-edge situation as existed in 2000, ask yourself what you, as the sitting Presidential candidate for either of the major parties, would have to decide in such circumstances as you sit in the Oval Office. If you failed to adopt SP but your opponent did, you just might have lost yourself the Presidency. On the other hand, if you did adopt SP first, not only would you attract the SP voting bloc, you wouldn't risk anything because implementation of SP only goes ahead when all or virtually all nations do likewise.

What would you do?

(I removed a paragraph to reduce repetetiveness on this thread).

Hope that helps. Incidentally, that FAQ is great for addressing most reservations anyone might have - i.e. it's not entirely necessary for ALL the nation states on Earth to participate. But I do feel that the USA is the biggie.

Live 8 - Making Poverty History?
Or Entrenching Our Irresponsibility?
By John Bunzl, Trustee
International Simultaneous Policy Organisation

The very name "Live 8" used for the rock concerts being held around the world on 2nd July to coincide with the G-8 meeting of the world?s richest nations indicates a focus on just eight politicians. It thus implies that just eight people could, if only they are sufficiently pressured, change the world by finally making poverty history. Bob Geldof KBE certainly seems to agree that these eight people have this within their power when, in referring to the original Live Aid concerts, he recently said, "We couldn?t change politics 20 years ago. It was a different world. Now it?s not a charity, it?s about political justice." Live 8, he says, "has to be this great national moment. This country gets to change the world and tilt it in favour of the poor. ? These eight guys should do this thing." [1]

These eight guys should do this thing!

Well, that would be nice. But can they? Does the G-8 really, genuinely, have the power to make poverty history? Does it really have that much power at all? Geldof and Bono by all accounts certainly think so. But are they not, perhaps, simply in thrall to the very attractive idea that some small group of people must have massive power and could change the world if only we put enough pressure on them? It?s tempting to think that someone must be in control of the global economy because, after all, aren?t our politicians supposed to be in charge of it? But how frightening would it be if we were to discover and to have to take on board the truth that no one is really in control; that the global economy actually runs on a kind of auto-pilot and governments and their appointed institutions such as the IMF, the WTO and the World Bank are merely puppets in a game over which they have no significant control? How frightening would it be, in short, to find that politicians and corporate executives are merely sitting in first class because there is, in reality, no pilot in the cockpit?

And it?s not just rock stars who seem to believe that a restricted group of politicians or business people have the power to change the world. The thousands of NGOs (Non-Governmental Organisations) that make up the ?global justice movement? and who consistently campaign against global poverty and other global problems all essentially adhere to the central tactic of blame, shame and protest to advance their cause. But blaming politicians or multi-national corporations inevitably carries with it the implication that they act wholly out of their own free will and thus have the power to change their behaviour. Blame implies power. After all, why else blame them?

It may be true that politicians and their appointed institutions have some power to reduce or cancel debt and to increase aid to poor countries and doing so would doubtless provide some short-term relief. But if we have a genuine intention to make poverty history, we should recognise that aid and debt are merely symptoms of a global economy that isn?t working. It is not therefore politicians? performance on aid or debt that will determine whether poverty is made history or not. Rather, we need to assess the extent to which politicians have any significant power over the deeper workings of the global economy itself.

Power Over Markets or Markets Overpower?

If we look, firstly, at corporations, investors and business executives who are the global economy?s main actors and whose behaviour is often blamed for many of our global ills, lets consider whether they act purely out of their own free will and whether they therefore have the power to substantially alter their damaging behaviour. It should be clear that in a competitive global market any corporation or investor taking on greater social or environmental responsibility ? and thus an increase in its costs - would only lose out to less responsible competitors causing a loss of its profits, a consequent loss of jobs and, ultimately, the prospect of becoming the target of a hostile takeover. Corporate execs are thus largely obliged to do what they do for as David Korten has accurately pointed out, "With financial markets demanding maximum short-term gains and corporate raiders standing by to trash any company that isn't externalizing every possible cost, efforts to fix the problem by raising the social consciousness of managers misdefine the problem. There are plenty of socially conscious managers. The problem is a predatory system that makes it difficult for them to survive. This creates a terrible dilemma for managers with a true social vision of the corporation's role in society. They must either compromise their vision or run a great risk of being expelled by the system."[2]

And what about politicians and governments? With no barriers to capital and employment moving instantly to any country where costs are lower and profits therefore higher, how should we expect governments to unilaterally impose increased regulations or taxes on business when that would only invite employment and investment to de-camp elsewhere? This collective governmental fear has become so ingrained and accepted that it has long since attracted its own code-name. For whenever you see the phrase, "maintaining our international competitiveness", you will be witnessing an unspoken inter-governmental race-to-the-bottom; a vicious circle which forces every nation to down-level social and environmental protection so as to better out-bid competitor nations for capital and jobs. It is therefore the global free movement of capital which drives the ever-widening gap between rich and poor and which explains why the environment is continually sacrificed at the altar of competitive economic growth. Such a political environment thus inevitably precludes the implementation of just the kind of measures needed if global poverty and so many other pressing global problems are really to be consigned to history. Because any government or restricted group of nations that moved first would lose out to all the others. And that is why nothing changes exept that our problems only get worse. Because governments, too, - even the G-8 - are largely powerless to buck the vicious circle of global capital flows over which they have no significant control.

International Competitiveness Emasculates Democracy

Which party we may vote into government or what their pre-election promises may have been consequently no longer much matters. Once in government even Green parties are forced to jettison their most cherished policies in the name of maintaining their nation?s international competitiveness as the German Green party has shown. This is why party politics has become little more than an electoral charade in which all parties become ?business parties? and none can offer substantive solutions to global problems. While we may have the mechanics of democracy, the reality is a kind of pseudo-democracy in which whatever party we elect, the policies delivered inevitably conform to the profit-seeking demands of foot-loose global capital. There is no democracy; there is merely the illusion of political choice. Conventional party politics cannot therefore save us.
Even the WTO, IMF and World Bank whom we might expect to have a greater measure of control are, in fact, merely reacting to forces well beyond their influence. This encourages and justifies their close-held delusion that competition is an exclusively beneficial phenomenon. For in having no control over the global free movement of capital or corporations, and thus in accepting that state as a "natural given", what else can they do but recommend that each nation improves it?s attractiveness to global investors by implementing structural adjustment and privatisation programs? Taking their free movement as a natural given thus constrains these institutions to prescribe yet more competition as the cure to our global ills and not less. Sacrificing society and the environment thus becomes neatly and logically justified by the ever-present need for each nation to "improve its international competitiveness". In failing to realise that economic competition becomes destructive when it fails to occur within a framework of adequate global regulations which protect society and the environment, the WTO, WB and IMF serve only to exacerbate the problems they think they?re solving. They are not in control. There is no pilot in the cockpit.

Because we so often refuse to see what is so plainly in front of our eyes, I will repeat myself: There IS NO PILOT IN THE COCKPIT. There IS no restricted group of politicians who can change the world. Such is the nature of the vicious circle of global capital flows that the system runs all by itself. No pilot needed. No pilot available.

For all the good Geldof, Bono and the global justice movement have undoubtedly done to bring global poverty and other global problems to wider public attention, they ultimately do us a disservice by perpetuating the common belief that politicians have substantial power. After all why, despite all the promises they manage to elicit from politicians regarding greater debt relief, increased aid and so on, do global poverty and other global problems only get worse? It was to broadly this question that Bob Geldof, during his interview on Friday Night with Jonathan Ross (BBC 1,10th June 2005), rather limply answered: "I don?t know". For Bob Geldof and NGOs, the first crucial step to understanding why their campaigns have little, if any, lasting effect would be to finally take on board and accept that those they believed to have significant power simply do not have it.

Adolescence or Maturity?

Very many of us would likely agree with the proposition that humanity?s aggregate mode of behaviour in the present age of scientific materialist globalisation, with its wars, grabs for natural resources, terrorism and unbridled consumption, is a sure sign that we find ourselves in the full flush of our species adolescence. Evolution biologist, Elisabet Sahtouris, notes ruefully that "Young species are found to have highly competitive characteristics: They take all the resources they can, they hog territory, they multiply wildly. Sound familiar?"[3] Indeed, one of the traits of adolescence is the avoidance of reality; the propensity to ignore the unpalatable, to remain dependent upon others, to blame others for our problems and to expect others to sort out our own mess. In short, the hallmark of adolescence is the abdication of responsibility. By maintaining the illusion that politicians have the power to change the world on their own, by abdicating responsibility to them, and by encouraging us to think that all we need to do is to buy a little white wrist-band and go to a rock concert, Live 8 regrettably perpetuates our avoidance of responsibility. It encourages us to think that someone else ? in this case eight politicians ? can save the world for us.
Fortunately, the road out of adolescence and towards humanity?s adulthood is being pioneered through the work of a number of as yet little-known organisations whose supporters have taken the crucial step of releasing themselves from these delusions and who, in taking proper responsibility, realise that they themselves, co-operating globally with other citizens, must take the necessary action. They know that no one else can or will do it for us. One such group is the International Simultaneous Policy Organisation (ISPO)[4] which offers a way for citizens the world over to firstly take back control of our hollowed-out pseudo-democratic processes and, secondly, a way we can co-create the policies necessary to achieve environmental sustainability and global justice. Finally it offers the crucial means for us to bring our politicians to implement them simultaneously so that no nation, corporation or citizen loses out to any other, thus allowing us all to escape the vicious circle of destructive global competition in which governments, corporations and citizens are presently locked.
By using our right to vote in a completely new way which makes it in the vital electoral interests of politicians to support Simultaneous Policy, it thus has the potential to turn the destructive, competition-led politics of globalisation on its head by offering global citizens a practical way to take back the world with a new politics of citizen-led, international co-operation for our emergent - but yet-to-be-born - sustainable global society. As Elisabet Sahtouris comments: "Simultaneous Policy is an imperative if we are to evolve humanity from its juvenile competitive stage to its co-operative species maturity. A wonderful ?no risk? strategy for finding agreement on important issues in building global community!".
It?s time we grew up.

John Bunzl ? June 2005.
John Bunzl is the founder and a Trustee of the International Simultaneous Policy Organisation (ISPO).
Adopting the Simultaneous Policy is free! Please go to: http://www.simpol.org/dossiers/dossier- ... sp-UK.html
Simultaneous Policy: Re-Discovering Our Collective Humanity
Footnotes:
[1] See http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressr ... ross.shtml
[2] When Corporations Rule the World, David Korten, Kumarian Press & Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 1995.
[3] Elisabet Sahtouris, adapted from Understanding Globalization as an Evolutionary Leap presented to the Institute of Noetic Sciences http://www.noetic.org/, July 2001. For more by Sahtouris go to: http://www.ratical.org/Lifeweb
[4] Global website http://www.simpol.org. UK website http://www.simpol.org.uk

SP article on the recent election:

The UK General Election 2005: A Proving Ground for SP?s Novel Voting Strategy

John Bunzl, Trustee of Simpol-UK, argues that SP offers electoral incentives within present ?pseudo-democracies? that are significant enough to drive governments to address global problems they currently ignore, and lists the ways in which UK election results successfully confirm that voting citizens now possess a viable process for developing global problem-solving policies, recognised by politicians as worthy of their support.

Citizens? attempts to improve representative democracy

From the time elections were first invented, citizens have cast their votes in increasingly sophisticated ways. First, those having the vote learned to use it in its most direct and obvious form: by simply choosing a candidate and then voting for them. As time passed and citizens became more aware of the quirks and biases of their electoral systems, they learnt the practice of ?tactical voting? whereby one no longer votes directly for one?s preferred candidate, but for the candidate most likely to result in the least unwelcome candidate being elected.

Today, despite representative democracy having spread across the globe, national governments seem more incapable then ever of meeting many of the world?s most critical challenges. While politicians endlessly profess global warming or global poverty, to name but two examples, to represent the highest of their priorities, decisive action is markedly lacking and adequate policies to address these issues remain all but absent from party manifestos.

Despite the spread of representative democracy, therefore, citizens increasingly find that it is failing to deliver solutions in a globalised world. This is evidenced by a marked trend towards reduced voter turnouts in national elections. After all, if voting no longer makes any appreciable difference, why bother?

Democratic deficiencies associated with globalisation

What voters sense but perhaps fail to clearly realise and articulate is that the forces of globalisation and international economic competition inevitably make healthy democracy unworkable. Since capital and corporations can quickly and easily move investment and jobs to wherever in the world that regulations and taxes are lowest and profits therefore highest, governments are inevitably restricted to a very narrow band of market and business-friendly policies options.

Competition between governments for inward investment and new jobs effectively prevents them from implementing any policy likely to cost business more. This, of course, means that just about any policy which would protect society or the environment, nationally or globally, cannot be implemented. With these policies having become effectively out of bounds, no political party in power ? regardless of its colour or of what it may have promised in its manifesto ? can buck this vicious circle.

Democracy has thus been reduced to what might be called ?pseudo-democracy? in which whatever party is elected to govern, the policies remain substantially the same: i.e. they remain confined to whatever may be required to keep business and capital markets happy; to whatever is needed, in short, to maintain the nation?s ?international competitiveness?. Meanwhile, global ? and many national ? problems are left to deteriorate. It is therefore of little surprise that citizens feel their votes make no substantial difference. Frustration and apathy inevitably grow while the global predicament worsens and becomes increasingly unstable.

In the present age of globalisation, therefore, voters are confronted with a new and altogether more challenging question: how to join forces with voters in other countries to use our votes in a new and powerful way that drives the politicians of all parties to implement global problem-solving measures in such a way that no nation need compromise its international competitiveness?

The novel global role in party-political democracies offered by SP

The Simultaneous Policy (SP) was designed precisely to provide an answer to that question, and the UK General Election on 5 May 2005 provided an appropriate ?proving ground? on which to test SP?s novel electoral approach. SP goes an important step beyond tactical voting because tactical voting still entails citizens voting for policies which are developed, not by citizens, but by political parties. SP, by contrast, invites citizens to develop their own set of global problem-solving policies.

Indeed, since international competition keeps these issues out of the reach of political parties, who else other than ourselves could do so? But taking over the task of global policy-making is accompanied by the proviso that SP?s policy agenda be implemented simultaneously by all or sufficient nations, and that citizens who adopt SP give strong preference at election time to politicians who pledge to implement it.

This electoral incentive, combined with the fact that simultaneous implementation removes the fears politicians justifiably have about safeguarding national competitiveness, are designed to offer politicians a win-win way of building the necessary international consensus required to implement the far-reaching policies our world, its environment and its peoples now so desperately need. So how did SP fare?

Six-point confirmation of SP?s successful intervention in the UK election

In the event, 38 candidates across 33 constituencies signed the Pledge to implement SP alongside other governments and 10 were elected to Parliament. Back in January 2004 when the campaign on the ground had barely started and Simpol-UK was still to be formed, we expected that our impact during an early general election would be minimal. The 10 MPs who have signed the Pledge is double our early expectation. Furthermore, they came from all the main political parties as well as from Plaid Cymru, the Welsh nationalist party. It is expected many more will sign up as the campaign grows. So these results show, I suggest, that we succeeded in proving:

1. That the SP ?technology? which allows adopters to use their votes to encourage candidates of all parties to pledge to implement SP works very well (in the UK political context, at least). This confirms that it is not necessary to be a political party to gain official acceptance for SP?s global policy agenda. In short, SP?s novel political approach seems to be compatible with, and yet to transcend, the system of conventional party politics.

2. That adopters were very effective indeed in persuading mainstream party candidates to make the Pledge. As the number of adopters grows larger still we can expect increasing support from MPs.

3. That politicians across the political spectrum appear to recognise the need for, and indeed the common sense of, simultaneous implementation in a globalised world. SP thus seems to have very broad cross-party appeal (or at least it is not incompatible with a wide spread of party-political views/approaches).

4. That some MPs sitting on large majorities (i.e. safe seats) were prepared to sign up to SP simply because they think it's a good and practical approach to solving global problems.

5. That SP appears to have been particularly effective in marginal (i.e. very unsafe) seats. In some of these, we were able to get Pledges from more than one of the competing candidates. The increase in the number of marginal seats in 2005 as compared to the 2001 election bodes well for substantially increasing the number of SP-pledging MPs at the next election.

6. That since candidates from Plaid Cymru and UKIP signed the Pledge, it would appear that SP is not incompatible with nationalist-oriented parties. Indeed, astute nationally oriented politicians will understand that, far from compromising national autonomy as one might at first expect, the implementation of SP would paradoxically serve to enhance it!

Implementation of global problem-solving policies is now politically achievable

All in all, the 2005 election showed, I think, that with SP, citizens at last possess a viable process for developing global problem-solving policies and that it is a process which politicians across the political divide see as serious, practical and worthy of their support. Indeed, many politicians seem to understand how destructive competition between nation-states increasingly puts solutions to global problems beyond their reach.
But SP now provides a way to bring them back; only this time with the people ? you and me ? determining the policy agenda. SP thus appears capable of reinserting these issues into every country?s national electoral ?space? where citizens cooperating globally can, through their adoption of SP, finally develop their own solutions. And they can make it in the electoral interests of politicians around the world to implement them ? simultaneously ? for the good of every nation; for the security of every corporation; for the welfare of every citizen; for the preservation of our planet; and for the good of all humanity.

From: www.simpol.org.uk/pdfs/simpolautumn05.pdf

Thinking aloud about fresh alternatives : A Personal Contribution to the Monetary Reform Debate

Silvano Borruso, SP Adopter in Kenya, gives a brief historical summary of how money came to be created and used, and proposes two reforms for our current debtbased monetary system. Citing examples from the Channel Islands, Austria and China he explains the contradiction between money?s ?store of value? and ?medium of exchange?. And he suggests that the creation in the 1930s of stable purchasing power via the issue of ?Gesellian? currency on a municipal scale can be quoted as an example of successful monetary reform with huge potential benefit.

From barter to modern government-based monetary systems

The very existence of money depends, necessarily and sufficiently, on the division of labour and the endless supply of goods and services that it produces. Take this supply away and money, whatever it?s made of, becomes utterly useless. Given self-sufficiency, barter is the norm.

Money embodies demand. As such, it ought to meet supply on equal terms, i.e. waxing and waning pari passu with the waxing and waning of the division of labour and its products.

Lycurgus of Sparta (9th century B.C.) understood this. His government issued money made of iron disks rendered brittle by dipping them in acid. Money was thus a medium of exchange, without additional properties, that would turn it into ?store of value.?

Croesus king of Lydia (6th century B.C.) did not understand. He coined lumps of electrum (an alloy of gold and silver) into money, sparking off the very confusion avoided by Lycurgus, and which still plagues humanity after 26 centuries. He monetized a precious metal. Money, up until then embodying demand as pure medium of exchange, now became part and parcel of supply, and hence ?store of value.?

It followed that whoever controlled the raw material for money, controlled (and still does) the demand embodied by money, inevitably getting rich at the expense of the producers of goods and services. Croesus monetized gold and became immensely rich (1).

Financiers wrested the control of money from governments in the past four centuries or so, and then convinced (or cajoled, or conned, is not up to me to say) them into believing that the way of raising revenue was by going into debt with them, and then taxing the producers of wealth to pay not only for the functions of government, but also for interest on debt. This so-called ?public? debt still acts like a ball and chain at the ankle of every government unlucky enough to have fallen into that trap.

Two necessary reforms and how they have been tested in practice

It should be clear from the foregoing that two reforms are needed.
? Money is to be a public service, not a private enterprise.
? Money?s exclusive purpose is to match the supply of goods and services coming to market thanks to the division of labour. The contradiction ?store of value? v. ?medium of exchange? ought to be eliminated once and for all.

The first reform was successfully carried out by the Bailiwick of the Channel Islands beginning in 1815. Since then the States of Jersey and Guernsey have issued money and spent it on infrastructures (2). Contrast them with the United Kingdom: the Glasgow Market, built in 1817 on a loan of ?60 000, was repaid only in 1956, when it was ripe for demolition. The Channel Tunnel ended up costing almost twice the original estimate of ?7bn. The tunnel Authority had to ?find? the money by borrowing it from a consortium of 220 banks. All the while, ?a pile of several billions of pounds cash [was sitting in a London] bank? (3). If ?several? means ? 7, that hoard could have paid for the Chunnel without indebting anyone, and fares would now be shorn of interest. Etc.

Governments, and the financial powers feared by them, as Simpol rightly points out, can afford to ignore the success of the puny Islands, as also such suggestions as: ?To issue new money as public revenue and put it into circulation as public spending, rather than continuing to allow commercial banks to issue it as profit-making loans. [It] will benefit almost everyone. It reflects the same principle as will make sense for future taxation. The monetary value of common resources should be treated as public revenue. It should not be ?enclosed? as private profit" (4).

What they can no longer afford to ignore, though, is China?s monetary policy.

In 1978 18 Chinese farmers ?agreed that they would still pay their grain tax [to government]. But once their obligations were met, they could sell or barter whatever surplus they could coax from the land? (5)

In a single year the bypassing of government restrictions spread like wildfire, triggering off the most spectacular economic boom of all time. Now China is doing on a grand scale precisely what the Channel Islands did, what Robertson recommends, and Silvio Gesell (1862-1930) proposed (6). China does not ?borrow.? Its State banks issue money directly into industry and infrastructure capital production, thus fuelling the lightning development of its major (and now minor) cities.

But the rut of convention stands in the way of this first reform. After 200 years of ?borrowing? and taxing the fruits of people?s labour, a better solution is not obvious. Simpol?s task is precisely to remove the scales from ordinary people?s eyes, and through them from those of their political representatives.

Proven success of the ?Gesellian? alternative paper currency

The first step of the second reform has already been taken by abandoning the gold standard: 1931 (UK and most countries) and 1971 (United States). The second step would consist in getting rid of the contradiction ?store of value? v. ?medium of exchange? still plaguing paper money. Gesell showed how: separate the monetary unit from the object representing it. The unit keeps a stable purchasing power, but the paper object gradually loses 5% of its
nominal value in one year, during which it can move goods and services equal to its nominal value times the number of exchanges. Demand and supply would now meet on a level field (7).

Gesellian money succeeded most spectacularly in W?rgl, a railway junction in the Austrian Tyrol, in 1932. A paltry 5,300 Schillings worth of ?Work-Certificates? issued by the municipality moved 2.5 million of goods and services by circulating some 450 times in 14 months. A bridge over the River Inn still stands as a witness to that success. Had H.M. Treasury acted similarly with the Channel Tunnel, a paltry 2.5 million pounds of such money, by circulating 400 times in a year for seven years, would have paid for the whole thing at the original estimate. Gesell called it ?Free Money.? No country has adopted it, but the first one that did would see usury and its offspring ? the public debt, high production costs, unemployment, poverty, inflation/stagnation, etc. ? disappear. The Social Question would be solved most peacefully and effectively, and the rest of the world would be effortlessly coaxed into adopting a truly Simultaneous Policy.
________________________
Notes:
1. See Herodotus I, p.30 ff.
2. A virtual visit to the Islands via the web will convince
anyone of how beneficial such practice has been.
3. The Economist, 27 July 2002, p.77.
4. James Robertson, Alternative Mansion House Speech, 4 Sep 2000.
5. How Eighteen Farmers Saved China, in China Inc. by Ted Fishman, Scribner, 2005, p.46 ff. 5.
6. Natural Economic Order, Part IV, Chap.2.
7. Some 30 000 communities worldwide issue their own currencies, some on Gesellian principles. Many such attempts languish and fail because there is no true ?circulation?, i.e. a single point of issue acting also as a point of reception. That?s where W?rgl succeeded, and where national government would unfailingly succeed. In fact, any producer of goods or services for which there is demand would succeed: a consortium of schools, a transport company, a cement factory, a utility company, etc. Their tokens would be denominated in whatever they produce: a teaching period, passenger-kilometres, kilowatt-hours, etc.

A Footnote about Interest-Free Loans From Peter Challen, Christian Council for Monetary Justice
Silvano Borruso's article is right to recognise the use of interest-free (repayable) loans for productive capital projects (as in Guernsey and the Channel Tunnel), thereby halving or more the cost. It is noted, however, the article mentions such loans in the context of debt-free money which is not repayable. The difference is crucial to acceptance in the world today because debt-free money is perceived as inflationary, not directed capital projects, and exclusive of the private sector.
A big momentum is now building behind nationally initiated interest-free loans which, after six international conferences, are undoubtedly winning the argument within Islamic academia. Trisakti University, for instance, is teaching the subject in its postgraduate programme and more universities are following suit. Such developments strengthen the case for monetary reform, and their increasing international acceptability endorses Simpol's decision to adopt this topic as one of its key policy measures.
__________________________
Editorial Note: a follow-up contact and extracts from a new book about money Readers will be interested to know that Jill Phillips, Simpol-UK Management Board member, is preparing a Simpoltons? Guide to monetary reform. This is designed to help people new to the topic learn more ? easily and enjoyably ? about the issues involved.
Deidre Kent also offers reader-friendly guidance in Healthy Money, Healthy Planet published this year by Craig Potton (New Zealand). Her approach differs in emphasis from that of James Robertson and John Bunzl in Monetary Reform: Making it Happen (ISPO, 2003), for she writes: ?I will argue that to have an abundant, sustainable and just economic system we need interest-free money at every level of organisation ? international, national and local ? to complement the scarce money we have now.? But the main features of this 322-page book are the clear explanations and solutions that follow from the statement ?It is rare to find an economist who acknowledges that at heart there is a structural defect in the financial system, which is leading to escalating debt, a widening gap between rich and poor, and a growth imperative that endangers the survival of the planet.? The text is presented in two main sections, Sick Money and Healthy Money, and ends characteristically with suggestions about what action individuals could take so that money ?can be restored to become our servant, not our master.?

GD wrote:Lycurgus of Sparta (9th century B.C.) understood this. His government issued money made of iron disks rendered brittle by dipping them in acid. Money was thus a medium of exchange, without additional properties, that would turn it into ?store of value.?

Croesus king of Lydia (6th century B.C.) did not understand. He coined lumps of electrum (an alloy of gold and silver) into money, sparking off the very confusion avoided by Lycurgus, and which still plagues humanity after 26 centuries. He monetized a precious metal. Money, up until then embodying demand as pure medium of exchange, now became part and parcel of supply, and hence ?store of value.?

Forgive me, for I'm not very good on this sort of thing, but I thought that "store of value" referred to the fact (for example) that my tomatoes, which I harvest in the summer, go off fairly quickly, whilst my needs exist all the year round. So, if I trade my tomatoes in the summer for some bits of iron, which also don't go off, they store the value of my tomatoes over the year when I need to buy things to keep me going.

Is the thing you're looking for "intrinsic value"? Acid-brittled iron presumably has no intrinsic value, whilst gold and other precious metals do,


Peter.