HOME
Message Board
CURRENT COLUMNS
- Editor's Corner
- Blogfest 2005
- Commentary
- Commentary Too
- Down The Middle
- Faulking Around
- Global Warning
- This guy walks into a bar...
- Investing 101
- Faulking Opinions
- Off The Rail
- Words
ARCHIVES
LINKS
CONTACT US
 | |||
Global Warning - Nov 15, 2004 - Printable Version
- I Want My GNP
by Robin Buckallew
I'll admit it. I'm slightly warped. Growing up in America, one gets that way. After all, as a child I learned that you spell relief R-O-L-A-I-D-S, and that America spells cheese K-R-A-F-T. Then, as I proceeded through the system, it became very obvious to me that America spells God G-N-P. I used to puzzle over it, this all important, all powerful thing known as GNP. We saw it on the news all the time. GNP was going up, the country was strong. GNP was going down, the country was devastated. In time I learned that GNP stood for Gross National Product (that was even more confusing - how could something be so very good if it was "gross"?). I dutifully learned the gross national product of various countries in geography classes in junior high (I'll admit it - I'm a great believer in education, but one thing I have never, ever, ever had a use for in my adult life was the gross national product of Zimbabwe. That has never come up, at work, in casual conversation, or even in Trivial Pursuit). Along with everyone else in the country, I watched the graphs go by on the news. I didn't really understand the graphs, but all those peaks and valleys were pretty impressive looking. If we were in a peak, we were supposed to all be rich and happy. In a valley, we were all ready to slit our wrists over the piling up bills and impending bankruptcy. Now I'm told by economists (note, I said economists, not ecologists) that GNP going up is good for the environment. They offer little proof of these assumptions, just some sort of vague information that the richer countries protect their environment better. They have yet to demonstrate a causal connection between the two, other than the obvious fact that countries with higher GNP can spend more for environmental protection. So, what exactly does this GNP do for us, anyway? Is it really a measure of human happiness? Does it protect the environment? Is it really GOD? (The answer to the last question - a loud, resounding NO!!!!). In recent years, I have learned that GNP harbors a dirty little secret. There is a not-so-well hidden skeleton in its closet. Let's take a look at how GNP is calculated, shall we? The determination of GNP takes into account every time money is exchanged in this country. As a result, many things go into determining our well-being that would no doubt surprise us. I am sure it would come as no shock to you to discover that every time you make a purchase, whether food or toys or a new outfit, that is a move upward for the GNP. A measure of human happiness, then. But let's look at some of the other purchases that might elevate the GNP. I have a chronic condition (asthma) that is prone to make me quite miserable at times. When I get miserable, I go out and get medicine, or go to the emergency room. This is bad, right? No, this is good, it elevates GNP, and if I were a better citizen, I would get wheezy that much more often to help strengthen my country. One day, I received a call that my son had a car wreck (he was all right, but totaled the car). This, of course, made my heart swell with pride because I knew that this car wreck would cause the little line on that graph to shoot upward just a little more when he replaced the car. It wasn't too long ago that I accidentally dropped my digital camera in the tall grass prairie I was taking a picture of. After fruitless searching for the camera, and a few tears to boot, I no doubt sat down and expressed my extreme joy that I was, once again, able to be a major contributor to rising GNP when I replaced this piece of equipment so vital to my work (my husband does not remember it that way at all - he says I was most inconsolable - but I'm sure I must have truly been overjoyed). When my sister recently had cancer surgery, she probably welcomed the fear and the nausea as sure indicators of the strength of the country's economy as she shelled out hard-earned dollars to countless doctors and hospitals to get her well again. When my mother died, were we consoled in our grief and loss knowing that the money spent on caring for her in her final hours was good for the economy? Did we comfort ourselves with the knowledge that the dollars spent on her funeral went to making our corporations richer, and therefore our country stronger? Broken toys, broken hearts, broken legs - all end up sooner or later being counted into the GNP. Think about it for a little bit. We are being sold the GNP as a measure of human happiness and well-being, but it appears what we might be measuring is human misery. Go ahead, have a nervous breakdown for your country. You'll be glad you did when that little line goes up a bit more.
If GNP is figured on those factors in human life, what are the calculations made with reference to the environment? In the environment, things get even more complicated. You see, standing crop (that's economist's terms - I usually just think of trees and wildflowers, or maybe ecosystems) is a resource. But it is rarely counted that way. Nothing is counted as GNP until it is cut down (harvested) and sold. Because it is not counted as an asset while it is standing, it is not deducted from the overall assets when it is cut down. Therefore, we lose resources, and our GNP goes up. Trees that are counted in economics are usually referred to as board-feet. It is somewhat revealing that foresters tend to use a lumber term to refer to standing trees. Botanists, on the other hand, refer to biomass. That is a term that also sounds somewhat cold to the layperson, but the very presence of the prefix bio- indicates the presence of something living. Not necessarily something to be sold.
What about pollution that is sent into the air? Surely that is counted as a negative on GNP. No, friends, actually it is much more likely to show up on the plus side. What the h., you say? How can pollution be shown as a plus? Because there are companies that make a lot of money cleaning this stuff up. They sell equipment to companies to keep their emissions down. They sell equipment to test the emissions to make sure they meet standards. They sell equipment and services that will help clean up the environment after it has been polluted. And in pollution, as in medicine, prevention generates a lot less wealth than cure. Yes, the lousy smell in your neighborhood is indeed the smell of money. Rejoice. Don't fight it. The line on the graph is still going up. And if that smoke coming out of the smokestack should give your child asthma, and your wife cancer, don't worry, be happy. The country is getting richer. Is any sacrifice too great to make to the GNP?
In recent years, some ecologically based economists (called eco-economists, for short) have proposed a radical rethinking of the GNP. Paul Hawkens is one of these. He has proposed an offset to the traditional GNP, also called GNP for Gross Natural Product. This measure would take into account the many services we receive from the environment. We would count such things as the oxygen production done in the little solar panel factories of the vegetation. We would consider the food web in its entirety, rather than just counting those items we DIRECTLY consume. We would consider many more things, such as the natural decomposition the fungus do that keeps us from being buried alive in dead organic matter, the natural fertilization that occurs from the organic matter returning its nutrients to the soil, the flood control done by natural wetlands..the list goes on. But how do we put a dollar amount on such things? Believe me, a lot of folks have tried. In fact, many articles have been written on this very subject. It is, however, quite controversial. Every author reaches a different estimate. Everyone has their own ideas about how much these things are worth. And no one could possibly include every service, so in spite of the fact that economists usually attack these estimates as putting way too high a value on the services, the estimates are probably much too low. Once again, as we saw in the calculations of GNP above, it tends to be somewhat relative. When faced with the death of a loved one, you probably would think (if you could stop grieving long enough to think about such nonsense) to hell with the GNP, I want my mother back. But to the great, grand economic monster we have created, such talk is just sentimental silliness. The death of your loved one has generated money for the great machinery of industry, and has generated jobs for your neighbors. How could you be so selfish? How could any of us be so selfish?
I want trees, wildflowers and birds - but I am told that the preservation of such things costs jobs and money. Never mind that this has never been demonstrated to be true (the models are in much disagreement - many models show that preservation would create jobs and money) - is it even the right way to look at it? Is it right for us to continue to genuflect before a system that so often is measured in human misery? Should we try to put a value on plants and animals based on what they do for us, or just learn to value them regardless? The economic system has placed a dollar amount on how much they think your life is worth (I am sure you would find it worth much more to you). They have placed a dollar amount on how much the life of a tree is worth. This enables them to do cost-benefit analyses on every action they take. Is it worth installing a piece of safety equipment to save one life? Most of us would probably say, no, they shouldn't have to spend a fortune to save one life - unless that life happens to be ours, or a loved one. Then all bets are off. But most companies would say yes, it is cheaper for them to pay your family a death benefit than to save your life. It is also usually cheaper for them to pay a fine for polluting your neighborhood than it is to install the equipment that would lessen the pollution. And in the event they should get caught, and have to pay settlements to the neighborhood based on health and life issues, consider this. They might have to pay for your hospitalization. They might have to pay for your medicine. They might have to pay for your death. (By the way, in the current legal system, even this becomes most unlikely. In the event you are lucky enough to get a settlement from them at all, most companies are declaring bankruptcy, often while still quite solvent, to protect themselves from having to pay out the lawsuits). One thing they rarely have to pay for is the dead birds, the dead mammals, and the dead vegetation. And it is highly unlikely anyone would ever hold them responsible for the dead fungus and the dead bacteria (organisms we all depend on, but few appreciate).
I have a proposal to make. Let's not subtract environmental damages from GNP. Let's get rid of GNP all together. There must be a better way. I don't yet know what it is. I doubt you do. But if we all put our heads together, surely we can come up with a way of running a country, trading goods, and keeping us all happy, healthy and well fed that doesn't rely on such a perverse measure of our "well-being". Let's quit measuring misery in dollars and cents. Dare to dream. Dare to envision life in a post-GNP world.
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE!
In reference to not only this, but an earlier column that I wrote (Don't Blame the Grinch), I would like to urge all my loyal readers to join me in a protest that is held every year about this time. Perhaps a few of you are aware of it. It is called BUY NOTHING DAY. Every year, a group known as Adbusters exhorts people to stay home on the day after Thanksgiving. Buy nothing. I have done this for many years, myself. I actually do it throughout the entire month of December, but I am only asking you to join me for the one day. I find, myself, that the malls and stores are a truly unpleasant place to be during the holidays, and feel that I have things to do that are much more important than shopping. So, for the day after Thanksgiving, my husband and I will just sit home and snuggle up together, and spend the day together, and with loved ones. Rest. Relax. Enjoy life. Persuade all your friends to do the same. And then, that night, on the evening news, chuckle as you watch the newscasters scratch their heads in bewilderment at the low turnout. The economy won't collapse if you stay home this one day. I promise you.
Just another quick word about Adbusters. This group is famous for their subvertisements, which are advertisements subverted. You may never have seen any of their subvertisements, as they cannot get the networks to carry their ads. Especially for BUY NOTHING DAY. They offer to pay for the ads. They don't ask for special prices. But the networks, which are owned by large corporations, are unwilling to risk running an ad that asks people not to buy. They make all their money when you spend all of yours. So, thumb your nose at the giant retailers who have sent your job to China, thumb your nose at the networks who direct their entertainment at you as if you were too dumb to think for yourself, thumb your nose at the entire lot of them. Stay home and have a relaxing Friday. Eat up your leftover turkey, veg in front of the TV (rent a movie - then you don't even have advertisements to spoil your day), read a book, or just play with the kids and the dog. Believe me, you will have a much happier, much more fulfilling holiday weekend. And my husband tells me there is lots of football on that weekend - if you like that sort of thing, that is. Happy Thanksgiving, everyone. Thanks for reading.
Voice your opinion on our message board (you don't have to sign up to post).