Opinion: Environmental sustainability and Information Society; a panoramic sweep

Information society and Sustainable Development
It has become widely recognised and ever-increasing attention placed; on human induced planetary problems associated with resource and (fossil) energy depletion, waste and pollution, overpopulation, land-degradation, loss of bio-diversity etc. Associated consequences include (but are not confined to) issues such as; climate change, Starvation and malnutrition (inflicting third world nations), environmental catastrophes, human health issues, economic concerns (need for continual economic growth) and overall ‘quality of life’ concerns for the wider planetary population. A cycle of consequences results from Humanities complex interdependence with the natural environment. As a result of an ever increasing body of evidence recognising this inter-dependent relationship and which directly attributes Man’s (or woman's) impact on the environment with many of the problems and challenges Man faces; a mounting call for ‘sustainable development’ of the human civilisation has been urged by many concerned stakeholders. ‘Sustainable development’ is widely defined as, ‘meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the needs of future generations’.

At the same time, it is now becoming apparent that in terms of societal evolution, we are in the midst of an ‘information revolution’. Society has undergone tremendous changes in the past 30 years, particularly because of technological advancements in ICT’s. Many theorists argue we are, or are approaching; a new ‘epoch’ or ‘age’. Terms include informatised society, information society, information age, knowledge society, network society, post-industrial society. What is clear is that the increased capacity and speed of processing information correlated with the exponential growth of ‘technical/technological/scientific knowledge’, (given the conducive economic/political conditions; democracy and capitalism combined, and favourable quantities of energy and physical resources) has resulted in enormous societal ‘advancement’ or ‘progress’ (seen from a western scientific view of progress).

Benefits of Progress
This ‘advancement’ or ‘progress’ has been associated with a notable rise in western material living standards, the degree and sophistication of the built environment and available technologies, the shift of labour from the agricultural and industrial sectors to the services sector, the advancement and application of scientific knowledge in all fields from medicine to engineering. Many Individuals in western countries now enjoy richer, more diverse livelihoods: They communicate more widely, travel further and more frequently, consume more extensively, are more knowledgeable, live longer lives; with work becoming more mentally challenging and less physically demanding.

Raison d’être pour ‘Progress’
‘Enlightenment’ Progress, delivered principally through capitalism and democracy, concerns emancipating the wider population from the drudgery of life, from misery and suffering and hardship, from control to freedom, from ignorance to literacy, from predetermination to choice. ‘Enlightenment’ progress is a faith in man to change his own condition for the better. Thus accumulating technical and scientific knowledge aids man in directing his own course. However, it is said by many ecologists, that capitalism (which has become the predominant economic model for achieving ‘progress’) is in its current guise creating many of the problems and barriers to achieving such conceptions of ‘progress’. This is because of the many ‘positive feedbacks’ built in to its system, which entails the spiralling and unpredictable consequences of our actions, the invisible ramifications of development which are difficult to identify because of the sheer complexity of our system. The root of the problem lies in neo-classical economics disciplinary isolation. Its failure to recognise the interdependence of our eco-system. It’s reliance on the nation state and global governance to ensure the necessary conditions for growth and to address the evident implications or ‘vicious cycles’ with which it creates. This is aside from the voracious and unapologetic character of capitalism and the values it trumps. Ecologists and some economists see our pre-dominant economic model as deeply flawed. At a more fundamental level, it is the meta-narrative or overarching ideology of western civilisation in the past 200 years, that has led to many of humanities problems and challenges which it faces. In particular, this entails the separation of man and nature in a number of ways; from modes of production, through distance between production to consumption, from the rise of the cosmopolitan cities, and a predominant western technological faith; what some ecologists term the western ‘age of optimism’. This removal of man from his environment has only recently being redressed in terms of a counter-balancing environmental consciousness and a more pro-active governmental attitude. Recently an alternative model; ‘Ecological economics’ or ‘environmental economists’, have been suggested, with aspects of the model beginning to become integrated into government economic policy. This has resulted in changes imposed through government regulation. Within the economic sphere itself, ‘corporate responsibility’ has become a term used to signify a growing recognition of the environmental and social consequences of a company’s actions and a wiliness to change by the companies themselves out of ethical concerns. Amongst the wider population, there have been grass-root movements such as ‘green peace’, political movements such as ‘the green party’ and recognition among sections of the community to be environmentally aware and responsible. This has been a marvellous achievement in itself, and has been facilitated by the information revolution itself. Thus, although the ‘information revolution’ has permitted western development and its associated consequences, it has similarly facilitated a wider awareness and understanding of the impact of these developments.

Capitalism
The principle driver for the breadth and speed of change in the past 30 years has been the evolution of capitalism with features of the information society as its key enabler, as its tools. The principle features of an information society being; 'information flow', ‘knowledge’ and ‘Information Communication Technology (in the form of software, hardware and the internet). ‘Information society’ policy seeks to cultivate ‘human capital’ and ‘knowledge capital’ in accordance with the market, leading to virtuous cycles of innovation, productivity, efficiency etc. Ultimately here, Capitalism is now seen as the only viable economic model for achieving social goals for many nations’ citizens, particularly since the collapse of communism. Wealth creation through continued economic growth is now seen as providing the foundation upon which a nation state ensures equitable ‘quality of life’ for its citizens accompanied with varying degrees of state policy interventions. It has been a combination of factors which has led to this change; the cold war leading to military technological innovations eventually being exploited by the market, the oil embargo of the 70s restraining growth and leading capitalism down a new path, a quickening pace of development subsequent to the second world war, the formation of regional economic alliances such as the European coal and steel alliance eventually evolving into the EU. In particular though, it was the technological revolution as a result of ICT’s which has been recognised as the principle tool for change.

Recent Changes
Thus far, it can be seen that the speed and breadth of change associated with ‘infomatised global Capitalism’ of the past 30 years (term coined by social theorist ‘Manuel Castells’) has resulted similarly in the speed and breadth of change in the physical environment. Rampant; population growth, urban development and ‘material consumption per capita’ has accompanied economic growth. This has resulted in a planet under environmental pressure and becoming resource depleted in important areas. The beneficiaries primarily being 20 percent of the world’s population who consume 80 percent of the world’s resources, while much of the negative environmental consequences being bore by underdeveloped nations in more extreme climates. Many of these resources are now approaching exhaustion or becoming less economically feasible to extract. However, it is the character of this new infomatised capitalism, which has ensured continued economic growth regardless of these limits in resources (dictated through price in a market economy). Knowledge has become the key to further growth through allocating a percentage of wealth to ‘research and development’; leading to innovations which translate to efficiency and productivity gains. These gains lead to products becoming less materially intensive to produce and resources becoming available to create more products. Accumulated Knowledge has led to efficiencies throughout the socio/economic sphere (not just in products) whether in production and management, or in transport and logistics. Efficiencies have led to time/space compression resulting in a quickening pace of change, as we can do more with less time; life has sped up. Another recent feature has been the emergence of the ‘digital economy’ which can be seen to be founded upon and reliant upon the material economy but which does not rely directly on material resources for its growth (but which operates in the same financial market, thus diverting capital from the material economy.)

Globalisation
The globalised economy has resulted in increased cross border trade of goods and services as well as companies becoming organized horizontally across national borders. It has resulted in reduced friction or barriers to trade and the emergence of ‘footloose companies’. This has taken place under the belief in ‘comparative advantage’. The benefit lies in each nation producing goods and services which are economically advantageous to its environmental/social/political climate while importing goods and services which are more suited to another nation’s climate. Thus, goods that are cheaper to import than produce internally are sourced elsewhere. The removal of barriers to trade and capital flow, results in goods and capital more easily flowing to where they are needed. For example; the environmental climate of Spain is more suited to farming ‘Oranges’ than the cooler climate of Ireland and can be done so at lower cost. The manufacturing of textiles is more suited to Taiwan because of abundance of cheap labour. Thus, given economically viable transport and logistics; we import oranges and textiles. However, ecologists may argue that we in Ireland shouldn’t be eating oranges anyway. That we should produce and consume largely products which are suited to our climate while reducing production and consumption which are not. Ecologists principally argue that international transport and logistics has enormous environmental consequences, which in turn results in invisible costs filtering into the economic/social sphere. They point to our dependence on Fossil fuels which account for 85% of the international energy market in subsiding global trade which would otherwise be economically un-viable for 2 reasons: Firstly, there is simply not enough alternative energy available to power the global economy and secondly, oil and gas are incredibly rich and versatile sources of energy unparalleled to any other energy source. However, what some ecologists fail to consider is that the leaps and bounds in technological progress, creates the possibility of alternative sources of energy as well as addressing limits in available resources. Through the information society, we create the conditions for technological innovation at a speed and scale unparalleled in human history, which in turn are applied to all conceivable limits to growth. But the future is uncertain, we do not know as to what extent technological innovation can address the aforementioned problems of energy and resource dependencies. Furthermore, technological progress does not by itself address disparities and inequalities in our global society.

The majority of the planets resources are being imported to western nations for consumption. For example; according to a ‘New Economic Foundation’ Report, Europe consumes twice its own level of bio-capacity, which effectively means purchasing the resources of other nations. Many of these resources include fossil fuels, iron ore and various minerals which are non renewable and will have to be purchased in to a nation in future at a considerably higher cost. The free market is advantageous to developed nations now but there should be no going back. Any closure of markets in the future will essentially entail hording of resources by developed nations. What ecologists refer to as ‘scope enlargement’ and ‘drawdown’ entails the market operating at ever increased scope (becoming viable as a result of a sufficient transport and sophisticated ICT infrastructure). This benefits the market as resources and labour etc become sourced at the lowest price for the producer. New markets of consumers become available and nations must compete by providing a suitable political/social/economic climate for footloose transnational companies to operate in. ‘Peer Polity’ ensues, causing nations to competitively invest in infrastructure, education and ‘research and development’ in order to maintain and attract footloose companies. This proceeds at a spiralling rate, resulting in diminishing marginal returns on development for nations. Increased scope of the market results in increased competition that drives innovation and productivity, but which results in companies always seeking to externalise negative environmental costs in order to stay competitive. Overall, the system requires ever-increasing rationalisation of the socio/economic sphere at every level in order to maintain economic growth, particularly as resource and regulatory limits arise.

New Economy
It has been argued that the character of the infomatised economy has managed to sizably decouple economic growth from growth of energy and resource consumption and so; (assuming wealth creation from economic growth continues to be seen as the best means of delivering societal goals) the continued development of the information society will provide the conditions under which there can be continuous growth and ensure a nations competitiveness in the global economy. Although economic growth over the past 30 years hasn’t resulted in a net decline in resource use (in fact the reverse has been seen), approaching limits in available physical resources means that future growth may rely almost entirely on mans innovation and ingenuity and not on increasing resource consumption. Not only must western economies continue to grow but developing economies must be allowed to grow also. The emergence of powerful economies such as China (with annual GDP growth of 9 percent and a population in the region of 1.2 billion) highlights this need for expansion and growth of the global economy. The human population is expected to increase from 6.4 billion at present to a figure of up to 9 billion in the next 50 years. Yet, even today, the entire material resources of the planet could only support up to 1.8 billion people at western material standards of living. The availability of cheap fossil fuels has become a thing of the past. Peak supplies of oil and gas only a short period ahead with annual declines in extraction expected henceforth. Available land for agricultural production becoming limited with salination, desertification and degradation on existing lands as a result of over production. Added to this, we must consider the environmental implications from the global economy (as it stands) in terms of ‘sources’: resources’ and ‘sinks: pollution and waste’. Here, enormous international focus has been given to the environmental consequences associated with economic development in recent years. Thus in a market economy, these limits in natural resources and on natures ability to sustain, represent increased costs for what is available.

Eco-economy
Not only must companies in future produce products which are sufficiently economically viable (given the increasing cost of physical and energy resources), they may increasingly be required by regulation to produce products in a less environmentally burdensome way; from production, through to product use, and in disposal. An area of research known as ‘Life Cycle assessment’. In Europe, such initiatives include the WEEE directive and the implementation of the ‘Kyoto Protocol’ (resulting in carbon trading etc.) These policy measures are consistent with calls from ecologists and many ecological economists to reintegrate the disciplines of economics with ecology and recognise that the price of products should better reflect the imposed environmental and social costs.

The economy itself may increasingly become a closed system, relying less on the ecosystem upon which it currently depends. This argument lies on the idea of the recycling economy. The economy may become such that it manages its resources and wastes rather than rely on the environment and state to provide resources and deal with its waste. This expansion of rationalisation into ‘waste’ is a requirement for the continued growth of the material economy. It does raise questions of the proliferation of ICT’s and the plethora of electronic devices such as RFID’s in the year ahead in terms of their viable disposal. A good example of the growth of trade in ‘second hand’ or ‘used products’ is e-bay, originally begun in the USA during the dot-com boom, it is now an international operation handling thousands of used goods daily. A system as versatile and user-friendly as this has only being possible thanks to the internet. It also represents a cultural change, an acceptance of bartering or auctioning, and the growth of individuals becoming accepting of purchasing second hand goods and moving away from a ‘throw away culture’

Character of the information society
Overall, there is currently and will need to be; enormous structural and behavioural changes in the economic/social sphere in order to cope with these grim environmental and physical realities. What is equally true is that there are enormous behavioural and structural changes in the economic/social sphere as we transcend to an ‘information age’. Not only will the 'information society' be crucial for the economy to continue to grow through efficiency and productivity gains etc, it also offers the alternative of providing lifestyle choices which are less materialistically dependent, Etc. Importantly, the networking characteristics of new ICT's allow a reconfiguring of social and economic relations with the prospect of negative to positve consequences for the environmental prolematique. The very character of the ‘information age’ may be one which is more eco-friendly, where lifestyles are less materialistic. The ‘information society also heralds the ability to address many environmental challenges. However, the ‘information age’ is also one which is irrevocably coupled within a predominantly capitalist system. Thus, the many faults and failings of this system can be attributed to its utilisation of ‘knowledge capital’ and ‘information society technologies’.

Age of Limits?
Many ecologists believe we have approached the ‘age of limits’. Modernity and faith in ‘Progress’ has served only a fraction of the human population well but at the detriment to the wider population and to future generations. The ecological cost of modernity has been colossal. Some ecologists referring to man as ‘homo-colossus’. We have now reached a threshold, our planet reaching environmental breaking point. But, we continue to have faith in the modern project, on the ability of science, technology and the market to address our troubles given more time. Our experience of both past and present continues to bolster this faith. New innovations in wind-energy technology increasing efficiency by 50% (announced by China), Intelligent Vehicles being able to substantially reduce their energy consumption by utilising geographical information on the gradient of the roads in which they travel to regulate their engines RPM’s whilst en-route. ‘Composite materials’ replacing ‘aluminium’ and ‘wing design’ mimicking those of birds in new Boeing commercial jets. ‘Knowledge capital’ and ICT’s can and does make significant differences. Substantial investment is being pumped into experimental technologies such as the ITER facility in France, which hopes to test the viability of commercial Nuclear Fusion reactors. Nation States seek to increase their percentage of GDP upwards of 3 percent to R&D seeking important innovations in return and ensuring nations competitiveness. Thus, the ‘information society’, seems to enbue the essence of the idea of ‘enlightenment’ progress. One which many ecologists seem to neglect in painting bleak pictures of the future. For example, Grossmann (2005) points out ‘that often people in the area of sustainability are unaware of the ongoing evolution of the information society’ (Grossmann, 2005, p180) However, it is uncertain as to what extent the transition to an ‘information society’ can positively affect ‘environmental sustainability’. Much empirical research highlights many negative as well as positive contributions of the ‘Information society’. The architecture of the ‘information society’ in terms of ICT’s has many negative environmental aspects. It is uncertain as to what extent people will attain a ‘quality of life’ through digital leisure activities etc. What is clear is that the current ecosystem has suffered tremendously as a result of ‘global infomatised capitalism’. What is hoped is that the current self-transformation and induced transformation of the ‘global infomatised’ economy will result in one which is less environmentally burdensome and which is conducive to sustainable objectives.

Conclusion
In conclusion, it becomes clear that changes taking place from a transition to an ‘information age’ will affect the imperative to achieving 'environmental sustainability'. Thus far, arguments that increasing resource efficiency will reduce the environmental burden, have not been empirically shown (Spangenberg, 2001) as increased mobility and the ‘rebound effect’ or ‘boomerang’ effect offsets any possible overall environmental gains. Widespread ‘environmental consciousness’ has not been felt in OECD countries, as the impetus behind various awareness campaigns quickly dissipates and western societal norms prevail. The onset of a digital economy hasn’t appeared to substitute material consumption but has tended to accompany it.

Finally, this discussion points out that systematically understanding the linkages must be seen as an important and valuable area of research looking ahead. To understand the relationship between the ‘information society’ (in terms of Information Communication technology and theoretical and codified information and knowledge) and ‘environmental sustainability, one must recognise that ‘global infomatised capitalism’ lies at the heart of the issue. Economy is a crucial link between both fields of research and should be the focus of future research. As mentioned earlier, ‘the information society’ is irrevocably coupled within our economic system and the transition to an ‘information age’ may in some respects be seen as a necessary response of capitalism to the physical limits of the planet and not just a stage in economic/societal evolution. In many respects the information revolution permitted capitalism to get us into this mess, equally, it will take the ‘information revolution’ to get us out of it. Perhaps the age we are moving towards is infact the”eco-information age”.

References:
CASTELLS, M., 1996. The rise of the network society. Malden, Mass: Blackwell Publishers.

GROSSMANN, W.D., 2000. Realising sustainable development with the information society - the holistic Double Gain-Link approach, H. PALAN, U. MANDER and Z. NAVEH, eds. In: 1999 Aug : Snowmass, CO, 2000, Elsevier; 2000 pp179-193.

SPANGENBERG, J.H., 2005. Will the information society be sustainable? Towards criteria and indicators for a sustainable knowledge society. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, 1(1/2), pp. 85-102.Copyright ©

2009 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.

Who is monitoring who in a world of online social networking?

This article is the first in a three part series raising issues arising from the proliferation and increasing usage of online social media. Recently Nielson research reported a tripling of the time Internet users spend on social networking sites in the space of a year, with social networking now accounting for 17% of time spent online. Similarly, based on the statistics from Alexa.com, the combined daily reach of 3 popular social network websites (facebook.com, myspace.com and twitter.com) is 24% of daily internet consumption with facebook.com accounting for 17%. This magnitude of growth alone, suggests a significant impact of these networks on the lives of individual members.

Recent reports by both Comscore and Nielson appear to show that social networking and social networking sites are now the most popular online activities;

"social networking was the second most popular online activity in the U.K. based on average time spent per user (4.6 hours), trailing only instant messaging (8.6 hours)" (Comscore, 2009).

Recently released research for the US by Nielson (2009) found that americans spend over 4 1/2 hours (on average per month) on facebook, more than any other site (of the top 10 brands) on the Internet. Thus, both the Nielson and Comscore reports say that Social networking, in particular facebook, is the most popular online activity in both the UK and the States. There is some difference though with Nielson and Comscore regarding time spent on these with Nielson quoting 6 hours for Facebook and Comscore quoting 4.6 hours for social networking sites in aggregate. But if you look at the nielson figures, its shows only facebook manages 6 hours with myspace, bebo hovering around 2 hours. Thus, in reality, the figures for both studies would seem to correlate. And, it seems to indicate that UK users of facebook spend more time on facebook than those in the US.

These figures demonstrate the need for substantive social research on the emerging role of social networking and social media on individuals and society. The next article entitled 'symbolic violence on facebook', will look at facebook through the lens of social capital and cultural capital theories. To begin with though, this article will briefly raise some possible issues and concerns regarding the phenomenon of individuals having increased available 'evidence' of their social network and it's activity.

There are a host of new capabilities emerging with the social web. What technology may now be facilitating is a nation of procumers (granted the figure still ranges between 1 and 5%). For the majority however, what we are now mostly seeing is a nation of monitors. This may even go beyond monitoring the 'background noise' of ones social network, seen as vital in sustaining virtual communities and enhancing offline social relations (Komito, Bates, 2009). What I wish to highlight at the extreme or 'ideal type', are a group of users in surveillance and gathering explicit analytical data; on those interested in their online identity or 'ego', often unbeknownst to the users interested (granted this is not the case for the vast majority of users). It has historically been the case that companies with an online presence should monitor and analyse traffic to their sites for pragmatic instrumental goals of optimising service, targeting users for products. However, now even beyond bloggers catching on to the practice of analysing site traffic, personal users with an online presence are now analysing traffic emerging from within their; 'personal networks' (see Wellman, 2001, 2002, 2003) or 'networks of sociability' (see Castells, 2004). This inevitably opens up questions as to how technologies (imbued with social and cultural values etc.) are in tandem with users; changing the nature of social relations?, changing privacy? and changing the nature of mind, consciousness and identity?. There is indeed a significant and growing body of academic research and literature addressing such questions as the 'impact' of technology on society from a macro to micro level. What I specifically wish to tackle in this article concerns the ability for individuals to explicitly, quantitatively and continuously survey and analyse their social position, social relations and those of others within personal networks. This may go beyond the traditional social monitoring, reflecting and theorising which individuals have (to various degrees) practiced on ones social network. Individuals for the first time in history, now have recorded evidence of their social networks activity, right there in front of them.

For instance, social network sites, now mean individuals can monitor online the relations that one's alters (ties such as friends, acquaintances etc) have with each other. McGuinness (2009) suggests that perhaps this provides an alternative to gathering information on ones ties, through hearsay and gossip. Could this in-turn reduce tainted or biased information that would come from alters? This would indicate increased information certainty. On the other hand, having exposure to tie communications that one isn't a part of, may increase uncertainty about ones importance and stature in one's social network? The issue here is that online social networks may have consequences for social relations on a level previously unseen in society and could make redundant sociological understandings about the dynamics of social relations. But this can go even further:

To take the case of twitter. Users now have several means of monitoring traffic to one's profile and the impact of their tweets. For instance, one can set up an account with one of the tinyurl companies and track traffic to ones posted links. Secondly, individuals can track whether status updates affects the number of people following them. Individuals can watch the diffusion of popular tweets through 'Retweets'. Users can monitor and use analytic tools to analyse their follower count and the demographic data etc. on those followers. This kind of activity by some users on twitter, is likely strongly correlated with their particular use of twitter. For instance, those who take the time to analyse and monitor activity to their profile, likely do so, because there is some value to them beyond mere curiosity. Nontheless, we can see trends emerging, such as programs on facebook that can sidestep privacy rules, by using apps to analyse available data for; 'popularity', 'friends interest in your profile' etc. Such statistics are based on who has posted on each others walls and commented on photos etc.

A larger and larger proportion of Internet users are becoming techno-savy and adept at using available Internet services. The increased interconnectedness of individuals disparate data on the web, and a crop of advancements in online technologies facilitating this, means that individuals can have easy access to information on individuals not in their everyday lives (pipl.com etc.). It is not uncommon for individuals to google a first date, or to monitor those they no-longer see. The past may importantly ground the present, but there may be times when its more helpful to leave past physical relationships in the past. Individuals may diminish consciousness of their present situations, their immediate experience. Here, the consciousness of place gives way to the 'space of flows' (see; Castells, 1998). Individual's attention can be more easily stretched across time and space.

Beyond recorded evidence of ones social relations and alters, we are now seeing software such as twitanalyser emerging that allows individuals analyse online identities. There is the potential for psychological traits, truth, consistency etc. to be gaged based on available information on the web. For the moment, the phenomenon of analysing online identities has been mainly confined to micro-blogging sites 'status updates', but there is no reason why it will stop there. Such information might be of interest to recruiters, workplace managers, schoolground bullies and prospective friends and colleagues. Previously, this kind of analytic data was available on website traffic of interest to those managing websites, whereby e-commerce sites and others found value in having data on traffic locations, referrals etc. Now, everyone can 'know' this kind of information 'if' one wishes.

Questions of the possible consequences of monitoring and quantitatively analysing our ego-centric networks arise:

-Curtails our own intuition and imagination?

-Makes us more instrumental in our social relations?

-Makes us more instrumental to ensuring social presence online?

-Addiction to checking our social network's 'background noise'?

-Reduces the expressive and affective nature of communication?

-Adds complexity to managing our social lives?

-Adds the potentiality of paranoia and uncertainty with ones close ties?

-Means we become grounded in the reality of our social position, reputation and social capital rather than our perceived or imagined position and reputation?

These are just a few of the myriad of possible questions which arise and which can be seen as perhaps positive or negative. We are principally dealing with the potentiality of users having more explicit hard information on others, and ones relations with others. Furthermore, we can now observe how ones action affects those relations in new and altered ways. This seems to point to the notion of a more individualised atomised person, with perhaps greater attentiveness and 'sense' of control(ing) of their relation with 'their' world, inline with trends theorised by Wellman and with observations by Putnam.

Bibliography:

references to follow shortly...

Copyright © 2009 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.

Food supply, energy and policy

Peter Baker over at the BBC's 'green'room, makes the argument that the sheer 'complexity' of global supply chains conflated with political policies, means we lose sight of the real value of food, it's calorific 'energy' content, as opposed its total energy cost of production, transporting, warehousing, storage and retailing etc. This point (he emphasises), is particularly relevant to 'how informed', trade policies are towards developing nations.

Examples he cites are that it takes 4 times the energy to produce a tomato in the US compared to its energy value. Or that the US dollar paid per amount of Nicaraguan coffee; does not compensate the energy cost of production and processing. Thus nicaraguans are 'subsidising the coffee' for export.

He concluded by emphasising the merits of locally produced and consumed foods, while lamenting the lack of data and metrics which make apparent the situation at present:

''We are intervening, politically and normatively, in very complex systems that we only partially understand. ' (Baker, 2008)

From my own research, I certainly agree with most of Peter's article, but his utilising of 'the second law of thermodynamics' unnecessarily confuses rather than crystallises his main points. The price consumers pay for food certainly reflects the added cost of production, storage, packaging, advertising, retailing etc (many of these entailing white collar 'informational' jobs). We can talk about the added energy all this brings, but is this fruitful? These are all jobs after all, eliminating the middle men has its consequences. Principly, let's not get overly distracted from the core issues; that of producers being given a 'fair' price for their goods, ensuring policies don't favour and subsidise mono-culture (and the associated 'chemical' and 'fertilising' industries), and ensuring bio-diversification by supporting small-scale farming industries and organic practices. Bakers emphasis on the true 'energy' costs of agriculture may well throw a negative light on monoculture, whilst raising awareness about the purity and nutritional value of food may favour organic. These are of course useful in informing policy though they may delay action. My point is that focusing on key policy principles may remedy many of the associated problems of 'energy' costs to which Baker refers. Getting bound up in the energy costs of food-supply can then be avoided.

The reality is that the value of food doesn't lie in its calories alone; it lies in the proportion of nutrients, minerals and compounds, its emotional value, its scarcity value, its shelf-life, its versatility, flexibility and utility in transport, storage, preparation and processing. Thus, the situation is unfathomably complex and it is doubtful that data or metrics could ever satisfactorily illuminate all that is involved (as Baker seems to suggest). Having more information about foods may not be better information. Instead, past experience, sound theory, principle and practice can aid in developing sound normative strategies for influencing the industry. Below I try to elucidate some of the contingencies absent from Bakers article:

The fact remains that current globalised agri-industry's (fertilisation and its synthesis, production, processing, warehousing, transport, retail etc) are inexobably bound up with fossil fuels. Understanding and decoupling this relationship is of key concern. Today, the cost per barrel currently hovers around $115. Projections on future price all point upwards(because of increased demand, peak oil etc.). Fossil fuels embody energy condensed over thousands of years and the price nowhere near reflects this embodied energy. Our way of life, our food supply, is being subsidised by 'ghost acreage' (past energy accumulations) which constantly diminish and become more cost prohibitive to extract (albeit rising prices have thus far opened up the viability of further extractions and alternative energy industries). We must acknowledge steps and adaptations to increasing energy prices: Options available for coping include; innovations and efficency gains in industry and associated relocalising and diversifying of food markets etc, switching to renewables as well as steps such as switching to organic farming practices. Realisically though, steps taken thus far fail to account for an ever rising global population and a concurrant appetite for western standards of living. Fossil fuels have allowed humanity to overshoot the planets carrying capacity and it remains unknown to what degree humanity can adapt.

With such pressures on global food supply, it is my view that we must throw caution and a critical eye to the prevalence and advocation of mono-culture (powered by a fossil fuel economy) and the push for genetically modified crops as a solution. Monoculture; the large scale 'rationalisation of food supply'; means farmers and consumers increasingly rely on key food stuffs and are thus sensitive (particularly in developing countries) to price fluctuations and shortages as a result of weather systems, commodity/future markets and energy prices etc. Monoculture quells biodiversity with associated ramifications. Monculture overly relies on artificial chemicals and fertilisation with uncalculatable hidden and externalised costs to the sanctity of the land, to biodiversity and to humans. Large scale food-production leaves populations susceptible to large scale contamination and disruption of food supply. Globalised food markets, commodity and future trading leave consumers and producers contingent to ever fluctuating global prices.

Similarly, genetically modified foods require extreme caution and temporal-restraint in their trial and implementation. We simply do not know the short-term and long-term effect on the bio-sphere and the impact on the 'web of life'. For example, GM crops 'designed' to grow 'bigger, 'faster' and more plentiful may do so at the expense of the integrity of the soil, plants don't grow in a vacuum!! In addition, we have already seen how corporations attempt to eliminate seeding of plants to leave farmers reliant on companies. There are additional concerns of the cross-contamination of GM crops into non-GM farms with inevitable patent issues and the farm->corporation reliance that ensues. Bio-diversification not monoculture brings resilience and sustainability of food supply. We simply must not be pushed by vested interests or those with incomplete knowledge, into believing Monoculture and GM crops are a large part of the solution to ensuring food supply. Policies which unnessicarily favour mono-culture and GM crops should be deeply questioned.

We must throw (what seems) positive light on the agri industry in terms of the manifold efficiency increases from reformed agricultural practices and new cultivated seed varieties. Innovation in agri-technology and practices as well as efficiencies in logistics, transport, warehousing and distribution of foodstuffs; have culminated in driving down prices and offsetting burdening oil prices. Related to this, is the move to renewable solar, wind and wave technology ( as well as nuclear); meaning we can make srides in replacing our dependance for fossil fuels which additionally helps curbs further increases in energy prices. At issue however, is that the present 'fossil fuelled' economy effectively subsidises the cost of researching and producing these renewables. Research illuminating the connection between fossil fuels and renewables is needed!

Paramount to all of this is 'truth' and 'price' in the market. To what degree does 'price' (undistorted by politics) in the market drive innovation and change in over food supply, farming practices and consumption? Does spiraling food prices drive diversity in food supply? Will increasing food prices drive change in lifestyles, behaviours and outlooks? For example; a rekindling of farm alotments in towns and cities, a curbing of excess food consumption, refocusing attention on the quality and sourcing of food etc. In otherwards, are we already moving to a situation where the 'truer' price of food (unsubsidised by cheap oil and regulated trade) is better reflected? The entanglement with food 'production' and energy prices has always existed in terms of fertilisation, machinery fuel costs etc. The entanglement though, look set to further increase with the advent of bio-fuels and energy price rises. Not only has farming land giving way to bio-fuel crops such as rape seed, palm oil etc. but crops such as wheat, corn and suger cane can now either be harvested for food or fuel. We must also emphasise how rising energy costs affects farming which relies on regular pesticide use, fertilisation and harvesting. This leads to the difficult question; how will increasing energy prices affect food production and food prices? Overall, to what degree will 'price' result in a restructuring of the market towards organic farming practices, bio-diversifiation and relocalisation of food supply? These are all questions which lack clear knowledge to date! I suppose though that rising prices favour a trend.

As already mentioned, 'efficiencies' and reform in the argi-sectors have made substantial differences to the 'cost' of food and the structure of the market. It is my belief that further efficiency gains and changes in practices will further restructure the industry. Information communication technologies (ICT's) have the potential to support and enhance small scale farming practices (including organic) in out-competing large scale mono-culture leading to sustainability of food supply and environment. A win-win, if you will!! Farmers with access to knowledge and assisted in connecting and communicating with other local farmers, producers and consumers; can enhanse bio-diversification and relocalisation of food supply. Small farmers who have easy access to up-to-date relevant information on market prices, long-range weather and product demand, as well as having access to knowledge repositories on relevant farming techniques, suitable crop varieties and the latest research; can flourish. ICT's importantly have the potential for farmers to better co-ordinate and communicate with local suppliers, retailers and consumers. 'Carrot' and 'Stick' policies which support small-scale food producers and artisans are needed in this regard.

As Baker argues, it may no longer make sense to simultaneously import and export high energy embodied food. I contend; policies which support biodiversification and small-scale farming are warranted, efficencies and reform in the agri-sector are ongoing and finally 'consumers', 'the market' and 'price'; invariably may help address disparities in 'energy' flows as they arrise.

For the full BBC article see:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7553958.stm

Copyright © 2006-2008 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.

Online community 'concocts' neighbourhood eatery

See the Washington Times article for details:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/26/AR2008072601978.html?hpid=topnews

I'm particularily interested in this venture because of the grassroots nature of organisation and the role of ICT's (through the online community etc.) in bringing this venture to fruition. The Washington Times operationalises the concept of 'crowdsourcing' in describing the phenomenon of ideas and plans being brought to fruition via outsourcing to interested members with specialised expertise (in many cases assisted through information communication technologies), drawing comparison with the principles of the open-source movement. It will in many ways be a novel approach to planning an establishment . Whether the establishment becomes a success (thus living up to the hopes and aspirations of its community of organisers) will be crucial to similar future projects.

Finally, a few observations on the venture:

- Large community input into the project inevidably means that it will become a rather complex venture; in the sense that a raft of ideas and expection of their implementation will be forthcoming. Whether the project can facilitate and appease the input of its members and go on to efficently manage this complexity has yet to be shown.
-As it's become a community venture, the design of the cafe/eatery will most likely have to accomodate its community by adhering to principles of an effective 'Third Place'. Whether this conflicts with this establishment as a business venture and its desired profitability will certainly be of utmost importance.
-Once the establishment launches, It will be interesting to see how ICT's (such as the existing online community aspect) facilitate's its perpetuation as a crowd-sourced project. For example could a service like LastFM be utilised in providing music which represents the members of the venture etc. How will ICT's faciliate communication and co-ordination with local producers such as the 'Artisans' and 'Organic Farmers'. Can online web 2.0 technologies be effectively utilised in the organising and time-tabling of events etc.

Copyright © 2006-2009 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.