Triple Bottom Line Planning, Accounting & Controlling"
Whether we call it triple bottom line or the pillars of sustainability or "Nature, People, Business", or "capital market//social democracy//environmental stewardship" we are referring to making policies in all domains based upon a harmonization of social/environmental/economic objectives and goals.
Every alternative policy solution to a particular problem needs to be compared on "a level playing field" so that the optimum "net social benefit" can be realized. Technically, this means comparing the value today of the full life cycle costs of the economic, social and environmental dimensions of alternatives. All three cost consequences are measurable in the long-run.
In my view, electoral reform is the first priority and triple bottom line is the second priority so that a truly representative government will have the most appropriate decision support system with which to advance our civilization.
We have done this before. Check out the "Integrated Electrical Resource Planning" methodology used by BC Hydro and required by regulation in 1992. This approach was created in response to the impossibly high costs of nuclear fission plants in the USA and Canada, and provided the economic justification for the inclusion of conservation in the "resources stack" of electric and natural gas companies.
In my view, this is the way that all economic trade-offs should be supported, not only in Government and public services, but in the private sector as well. It is a key device in managing sustainability.
The challenge is communicating this vital method to ensure full adoption. Somewhat the same challenge as communicating electoral reform. But it is time that we acknowledged that the universe we occupy is represented by at least three dimensions, and the single dimension party, or two dimension government is a terminal dinosaur.
For the Green Party we must accept the challenge of presenting our policy alternatives along with the triple bottom line conclusions. Hard? Yes. Worthwhile?
- John Hague's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Recent Comments
- Theodore Tadeson |
- Rick Shea |
- Bram Kivenko |
- Rick Shea |
- David Barclay |
- 1 of 2171
- ››
Comments
"economic trade-offs"
I agree that we need to quantify (with actual experts) what tradeoffs there will be, but I have a serious problem with our way of attacking problems. There is so much wrong with how Canada operates that we could form governments for decades making progress all over the board without having to make any economic tradeoffs.
Not recognizing this puts us at an immediate and permanent disadvantage at the polls. Why do we insist on showing cards that may not even have to be played? Instead of complaining about oil, maybe the Greens should be showing that we can see past our noses. We can be cheerleading research in technologies that are necessary to make wind and solar reasonable: battery technology, or nanotech solar cells. More economical renewable energy would shut down oil production without coercive government behaviour.
The Green party can make a difference even without being in government, simply by shedding light on or raising money for renewable energy technologies. If we can earn our stripes outside of government, we'll get the votes to get into government.
I'll give you an example. I'm sure most greens have a problem with astronomical executive compensation. But if you come and say you want to regulate compensation you will get a very strong backlash. Personally, I wouldn't be for it either. If shareholders want to pay their CEOs crazy salaries, it's their business. But there's problem... To get a grip on executive compensation necessitates getting to the root, which is that there are a number of actors that use your money to reward themselves. Mutual funds and pension funds manage shares that you "beneficially" own, but these managers vote your shares representing interests not your own. They do this because they are not accountable. Even if you own shares, there are a large number of roadblocks that prevent you from voting them. Middle-income Canadians should be in a position to control how publicly traded companies get run, yet we owners are unable to vote the shares how they want. Economics breaks down (as we have seen) when one person controls another person's wealth.
The above example may not mean much to too many people, but I assure you that it is by far the most worrisome problem facing our economy today. It is worse than free-trade with non-democratic and corrupt countries.
Anyway, there is a long list of problems that can be addressed that would return control of the country to its people (like educating everyone about finance). "Economic trade-offs" are far, far down on the list.