In the comment section of my most recent post, Tim from Kiva writes:

The frustration lies in how the global warming cause can be a middle-to-upper middle class cause. Someone struggling to eat on a daily basis or ensuring a stable roof over their head is less likely to ponder the solutions to our current global warming challenge, leading me to believe that there is a correlation between successful greenhouse gas elimination and poverty eradication. Explosive economic growth has led to much environmental damage, but sound economic growth does not have to come at the cost of the environment.

Tim goes on to explain that Kiva is a non-profit organization that seeks to provide much needed capital to micro-enterprise by using the Internet as a means of micro-lending. Thus far, Kiva has received pretty good reviews, and these types of innovative models are to be applauded.

Without a doubt, the relationship between economic growth and environmental sustainability is key. I would argue that there exists a tremendous gap between those mega-institutions currently promoting economic development and a more grassroots organization like Kiva. Economists are the new priests of the global, capitalist dogma, which is often referred to as the Washington Consensus. And macroeconomic models are fairly myopic in their view of development: hyperinflated GDP growth, open markets, and increased access to foreign exchange are considered the primary indicators of successful economic development. By these measures, China is an unqualified success.

Nevertheless, such measures don’t take into account other factors that are closely related to quality of life, like civil liberties, a clean and healthy environment, or agreeable working conditions. And now, with the relatively new phenomenon of global warming, economic policies that promote rational carbon management strategies are another factor that will complicate the tense relationship between “development” and quality of life. So long as global society views the Western lifestyle as the ideal, the Chinese development model will continue to stand out as a shining example.

The real tragedy in all of this is the way in which monied interests are so adept at framing the debate. Alternative views exist, and alternative models, successful ones, are being implemented all over the world. The problem with these models, from a power politics perspective, is they tend to be balanced: profitable but small, sustainable and therefore yielding steady returns over relatively long periods of time. These aren’t the types of initiatives that yield double digit returns in a period of months or weeks, and so the debate isn’t really framed around these types of solutions.

The global economic experiment, on the other hand, is very much linked to the mobility of large sums of capital. As capital moves through foreign markets, it becomes a self-replicating entity, not really producing value in the form of goods and services, but multiplied through speculative investment and high risk day trading. Thus, access to intellectual, political and monetary capital is reserved for a select elite that stands to benefit from its mobility and its extremely tight concentration.

So long as capital remains the driving force behind most political and economic actions, it will be a long haul for those of us promoting truly sustainable development models. And so, while other countries scramble to march in the footsteps of the Chinese behemoth, the planet will continue to warm at an ever increasing rate.