Sierra Club Touts Economic ‘De-Growth’: ‘We have to de-grow our economy’ to ‘temper climate disruption, and foster a stable, equitable world economy’ – ‘WORK LESS TO LIVE MORE’

http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/201403/work-less-enjoy-more.aspx

GREEN BIZ: WORK LESS TO LIVE MORE

Think slow food, but for your whole life

In the last century, public opinion has shifted from deeming a 40-hour workweek scandalously short to hailing it as a triumph of modern labor. Now, with a faltering global economy and human population projections creeping toward 10 billion by 2050, some researchers are calling for a change that might be considered blasphemous: a 20- to 30-hour full-time workweek.

Resistance is inevitable, but as history shows, so is change. Reducing individual workloads and distributing the hours among more people could increase personal well-being, temper climate disruption, and foster a stable, equitable world economy, according to the New Economics Foundation in London and the Worldwatch Institute in Washington, D.C.

“There’s no such thing as sustainable growth, not in a country like the U.S.,” Worldwatch senior fellow Erik Assadourian says. “We have to de-grow our economy, which is obviously not a popular stance to take in a culture that celebrates growth in all forms. But as the saying goes, if everyone consumed like Americans, we’d need four planets.”

Whether you move to a smaller house or an apartment, downsize to one or no car, or simply have fewer lattes to-go, a smaller paycheck could reduce consumption overall.

“If we had a livable wage and could each work a 20-hour week,” Assadourian says, “we’d have time to choose more sustainable options that are also better for ourselves.”

Maybe we’d even like it. We could cook dinner instead of unwrapping and microwaving it, Assadourian suggests, or hang laundry to dry, which would cut electricity use and let us spend time in the sun.

Anna Coote, head of social policy at the New Economics Foundation, argues that we should work less and use that time whittling away at a more joyful life. “Why do we work? What do we do with the money we earn?” she asks. “Can we begin to think differently about how much we need—to get out of the fast lane and live life at a more sustainable pace, to do things that are better for the planet, better for ourselves?”

Shorter workweeks could mean more time for psychologically gratifying pursuits such as gardening, reading, or biking.

Of course, most of us don’t have the luxury of choosing to become enlightened minimalists. We’ll likely need at least a higher minimum wage, healthcare that’s not dependent on a …

Climate Audit’s McIntyre: ‘Michael Mann’s claim to have been ‘exonerated’ by the Oxburgh inquiry had no more validity than Mann’s claim to have won a Nobel prize’ – ‘Mann’s claim to have been ‘exonerated’ by the Muir Russell inquiry is equally invalid’

Mann and the Muir Russell Inquiry #1

http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/21/mann-and-the-muir-russell-inquiry-1/

In my most recent post, I showed that Mann’s claim to have been “exonerated” by the Oxburgh inquiry had no more validity than Mann’s claim to have won a Nobel prize. In today’s post, I’ll continue my series on the “investigations” by showing that Mann’s claim to have been “exonerated” by the Muir Russell inquiry is equally invalid.
In their memoranda supporting their original motions to dismiss, both National Review and CEI had observed (correctly) that the Muir Russell panel had limited their findings to “CRU scientists” and contested Mann’s assertion that the Muir Russell panel had made any findings regarding Mann himself, let alone “exonerated” him.
In Mann’s Reply Memorandum, he vociferously rejected the (correct) assertion that the Muir Russell had not exonerated Mann himself, describing such assertion as merely an attempt to “obfuscate and misrepresent”. Mann supported this bluster with an apparent quotation from the Muir Russell report, but the phrase within the quotation marks does not actually occur within the Muir Russell report. As shown below, Mann and/or his lawyers subtly altered the quotation to more supportive language.
The Muir Russell Report

In their summary, the Muir Russell report explicitly stated that its remit related to the behavior of CRU scientists, not scientists in the United States or even at other UK institutions:
6. The allegations relate to aspects of the behaviour of the CRU scientists, such as their handling and release of data, their approach to peer review, and their role in the public presentation of results…
The Team wishes to focus on the honesty, rigour and openness with which CRU handled its data…

The Muir Russell panel did not interview Mann, a minimum prerequisite in any investigation of Mann. (Not that their investigation of CRU scientists was searching or even adequate, but they at least interviewed Jones and Briffa.) Nowhere is there any Finding in the Muir Russell report that refers to Mann, though there are many references to “CRU scientists.” Consistent with their limited remit, their signature finding is explicitly and unequivocally limited to “CRU scientists” and made no mention of Mann:
8. The Review examines the honesty, rigour and openness with which the CRU scientists have acted… On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.
Re-read the exact language …