date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 02:24:35 +0800
from: "Institute for Global Futures Research (IGFR)" <igfr@igfr.org>
subject: Global Futures Bulletin #118
to: (Recipient list suppressed)

_______________________________________________________
********************************************************
GLOBAL FUTURES BULLETIN  #118
---15 Oct, 02000---                                                   ISSN
1328-5157
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Institute for Global Futures Research (IGFR).
P.O. Box 263E, Earlville, QLD 4870, Australia.
E-mail: <igfr@igfr.org>.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This bulletin is for the use of IGFR members and GFB subscribers 
only and is not to be re-posted.
________________________________________________________
********************************************************
*
*
INDEX
.	Solar flux, cosmic rays and global warming
.	Correction - volcano climate forcing
.	Revolution (Part 3/3)
	.	Reactionary response to a new revolution
.	Socially responsible investment (SRI)  (Part1/2)
.	Calendar
*
*
SOLAR FLUX, COSMIC RAYS, AND GLOBAL WARMING
Joan Aron and Geoff Holland

The total amount of solar radiation striking Earth fluctuates 
according to 11-year (sunspot) cycles and other longer cycles.  
However, it has increased only about 0.1 percent over the past 
century, according to best estimates [1].

But an increase in ultraviolet and extreme ultraviolet radiation could 
also impact atmosphere dynamics and chemistry, eg atmospheric 
ozone which heats up as it absorbs ultraviolet radiation according to 
Paal Brekke of the Goddard Space Flight Center [2].

The sun's exterior magnetic field has increased 230% since 1901 and 
by 40% since 1964 according to Michael Lockwood at the Rutherford 
Appleton Laboratory in England.  This increase could mean less 
cosmic rays from outer space reach Earth.  There is evidence from 
Greenland ice cores that cosmic-ray bombardment has declined over 
the past century [3].

Cosmic rays could be responsible for ionising the air and the creation 
of low-level cooling clouds according to Henrik Svensmark of the 
Danish Space Research Institute [4] (ie reduction in cosmic rays could 
be one cause of global warming).

But Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research 
asserts that the effects of anthropogenic aerosols would far outweigh 
(eg factor 10) effects of cosmic rays [5].

Trenberth also argues low level cloud has been increasing in recent 
decades, while Svensmark says it has been decreasing, especially over 
the oceans [6].

There are a number of hypotheses that suggest current global warming 
could be caused in part or in total by natural (non-anthropogenic) 
phenomena.

(Some climate skeptics, of course, assert there is in fact no global 
warming occurring, and urban-based temperature monitoring has 
been influenced by localised warming in cities etc).

For example the Milankovich Mechanism suggests that three factors 
combine to cause glaciation [7] (or global warming during other 
phases of the cycles).
- Earth's tilt variation (41,000 year cycle)
- wobble of Earth's axis (22,000 year cycle)
- variation in Earth's elliptical orbit (100,000 year cycle)

James Hansen concedes 0.4 Watts/m2 (+/- 0.2) 1850-2000 to natural 
changes in solar flux of a total 3.3 Watts/sqm positive climate 
forcing [8].  

total positive climate forcing 	 3.30 W/m2
total negative climate forcing	-0.85W/m2

net climate forcing               	 2.45W/m2

Hansen, however, does not give much credence to the cosmic ray 
hypothesis.

While climate science is fraught with uncertainty, the greenhouse 
effect of CO2 and CH4 (methane), for example, is reasonably well-
understood.  It is also a fact that CO2 and CH4 atmospheric 
concentrations have increased 290ppm-375ppm (29%) 1860-2000 and 
700-1850ppb 1800-2000 (264%) respectively.

(Note the latest quote for CO2 as 375ppm jumping from last quote of 
365ppm, and CH4 as 1850ppb from 1700ppb last quote [9] ).

The burden of proof is really for climate skeptics who acknowledge 
global warming is occurring, to demonstrate why it is *not* mostly 
due to highly likely causes such as CO2 and CH4 etc.

Also we must be mindful of a potentially much higher positive net 
climate forcing rate over the 21stC due to:
- delays in global warming due to heat absorption by oceans
- increased or sustained levels in fossil fuel use (eg coal)
- increased release of methane from various sources such as melting 
    permafrost
- positive feedback mechanisms such as bacterial release of CO2 [10].
*
[1]-[6] Suplee, Curt 'Sun studies may shed light on global warming'  
Washington Post  9 Oct 2000  p A3.
[7] 'Causes of the Ice Ages'  Global Futures Bulletin #88  
15 July 1999
[8] Hansen, James; Sato M, Ruedy R, Lacis A, Oinas V  'Global 
Warming in the Twenty-first Century: an Alternative Scenario'  June 
2000  Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.  A summary 
of this paper can be found at 
<www.giss.nasa.gov/research/impacts/altscenario/>
[9] Homen, Kim  University of Stockholm, quoted in BBC News 
8 Sept 2000 'Bacteria 'hasten climate change' 
<www.news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/
newsid_916000/916690.stm>
[10] Homen op cit.
*
{3. climate change}
*
*
*
CORRECTION - VOLCANO CLIMATE FORCING
In 'Methane and global warming' GFB#115, the natural climate 
forcing for volcanoes was stated as 1.5 Watts/m2, with +/- 3.5 W/m2 
range of decadal mean.

This data was incorrect by one decimal place.  (Apologies).  The 
correct data is:

Natural forcings  [1]
sun             		  0.4 	+/- 0.2
volcanic aerosols          	- 0.15 	+/- 0.35 (range of decadal mean)

James Hansen writes [2]:
'The long-term (150 year) volcanic aerosol forcing is very small.  The 
volcanic forcing is temporary.  In a given decade it can be significant 
(+0.2, relative to the long-term mean, in a decade with absolutely no 
aerosols, or -0.5 in a decade such as the 1880s, which had Krakatau 
and other volcanoes), but volcanoes come and go, so the long term 
trend is small.  

'The forcing by (human-made) tropospheric aerosols, though very 
uncertain, is estimated as -1.5 W/m2.  The human made greenhouse 
gas forcing is +2.8 W/m2.

'If all the human forcings had not occurred in the past 150 years, the 
sun would have been the winner (and caused a warming) as far as long 
term trend is concerned, with volcanoes causing occasional coolings.  
Of course there may be other natural forcings that we don't know 
about.' 
*
[1] Hansen, James; Sato M, Ruedy R, Lacis A, Oinas V  'Global 
Warming in the Twenty-first Century: an Alternative Scenario'  June 
2000  Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.  A summary 
of this paper can be found at 
<www.giss.nasa.gov/research/impacts/altscenario/>
[2] Hansen, James  personal communication 10 Oct 2000
*
{3. climate change}
*
*
*
REVOLUTION (PART 3/3)

REACTIONARY RESPONSE TO A NEW REVOLUTION
In considering the possibility of a major political revolution, it is 
necessary to consider the prospect of a counter-revolutionary 
response.  To what extent are conscious, coherent and possibly 
centralised agencies working to derail the growing revolutionary 
movement ?  Afterall, the future of capitalism may be at stake.

It is likely that a majority of those engaged in the proto-revolution are 
seeking major reforms of capitalism rather than the overthrow of 
capitalism.  This is because alternatives to the current capitalist world 
system have not been clearly articulated (unlike with previous Marxist 
revolutionary movements).  Also, disillusionment with experiments in 
state socialism in the Soviet Union and China is still strong.

The general ideal is likely to be an extension of the Scandinavian 
model - a mixed economy, social democracy - but with a far greater 
commitment to:
- the environment
- Third World development (global social justice and equity)
- industrial ecology
- participatory democracy

In this scenario, capitalism survives in a radically re-regulated 
environment, one that utilises 'smart regulation', self-regulation, and 
market instruments where possible.

Counter-revolutionary agencies would possibly include conservative 
elements in the corporate, political, and intelligence/military 
establishments and conservative thinktanks in the US, UK, Germany, 
France, Italy, Japan amongst other countries in Europe and Latin 
America etc, and may involve some organisations with a public 
profile such as the Trilateral Commission [1], the Council on Foreign 
Relations [2] or the Bilderberg forum [3], but also private, low-profile 
and informal networks.

They would realise that to 'capture' or coopt the Net to disable its use 
as a revolutionary tool would be difficult (even difficult to outlaw 
encryption software to allow for more effective surveillance) - unless 
Net warfare were employed (eg targeted virus software, 
disinformation).

In 1989 activist presence on the Net was relatively strong and the 
commercial presence almost non-existent.  Now the commercial 
sphere has overshadowed all others with sophisticated multimedia 
interface.  Yet cyberspace is relatively limitless compared to television 
and radio frequency spectrums, and far cheaper than print media, so 
alternative media cannot be crowded out.  Everyone gets a shopfront 
on Mainstreet.

Would-be counter-revolutionary agencies would also realise the 
difficulty in derailing a revolution with a decentralised grassroots 
coalition structure, a movement with multi-drivers, heterogenous 
ideology, and with a platform founded on a constellation of issues.

The so-called 'brownlash' - which has consisted of carefully crafted 
media campaigns and disinformation to discredit environmental 
organisations, as well as the formation of front lobby organisations 
which are constructed to look like grassroots activist organisations, 
and adopting activist parlance ('Global Climate Coalition', 'Greening 
Earth Society') - may be a centrally orchestrated strategy, but are more 
likely a logical decentralised response.

The topography of ideology and power is complex.  Conspiracy 
theorists like to point to secret networks of very powerful people 
deciding the future of humanity.  Such networks undoubtedly exist but 
whether they constitute a 'conspiracy' would depend on the degree to 
which they subvert the democratic and judicial process.  Their 
ultimate power and influence, although subtle in many ways, may also 
be quite constrained.

An interesting case is the US Commission on Presidential Debates 
(CPD) which limits the presidential contender debates to parties with 
15% or more voter support, effectively limiting the high profile 
televised debate to the Democratic and Republican Parties (and 
excluding others such as ultra-conservative Pat Buchanan, and radical 
Ralph Nader).  Critics say that both major parties have been captured 
and are ultimately controlled by corporate funding and corporate 
interests.  The CPD is a private corporation financed by other private 
corporations (Anheuser-Busch, 3 Com, and U.S. Airways).  Is this the 
incidental logic of the system, or is it part of a highly intentional 
orchestrated strategy ?

The next question we must ask is that if there is what we might call a 
'paternal network of the powerful', which prevents humanity from 
making radical deviations from the norm, 
- how sophisticated is their worldview ?
- to what extent are their views altruistic versus self-interested ?
- to what extent is their analysis valid ?

- how sophisticated is their worldview ?
It is likely there are a number of main networks in each of the most 
powerful capitalist countries mentioned above, which are highly 
resourced and with easy access to thinktanks (eg Adam Smith 
Institute, American Enterprise Institute, Cato Institute, CDISS, Centre 
for Policy Studies {UK}, Heritage Foundation, Hoover Institution, 
Hudson Institute, International Relations and Security Network 
{Switzerland}, Progress and Freedom Foundation, Rand Corporation 
etc) and high levels of intelligence, statistics and other data.  Reports 
can be commissioned and completed promptly.  Although their 
analysis is likely to be sophisticated (eg intelligence rich, good 
methodology, careful analysis, professional), it can easily become 
distorted due to basic errors in assumptions determined by worldview 
and ideology - a pitfall inherent in any thinktank, conservative or 
progressive.

- to what extent are their views altruistic versus self-interested ?
There is often no clear distinction between altruism and self-interest, 
as ideology provides the bridge.  A win-win option is a synthesis of 
altruism and self-interest.

- to what extent is their analysis valid ? 
|Arguments in defence of capitalism and Pax Americana:
|Capitalist economic expansion has significantly enhanced the quality 
|of life and increased opportunities for ~800m in the developed world, 
|another ~1b in the developing world, and has the potential to provide 
|the same benefits to the remaining ~4.2b people.  The capitalist 
|economy has thrived alongside comprehensive welfare systems in the 
|developed nations, and has not conflicted with, and may have helped 
|stimulate a transition to democracy for most nations in the Third 
|World over the last few decades.

|Technological innovation has been strong, and world peace has been 
|reasonably successful in the last quarter century under Pax 
|Americana.  The nuclear arms race was extremely risky but likewise 
|proved a successful strategy.  Had state socialism dominated the 
|world stage, civil rights, freedom of expression, economic growth, 
|standard of living, technological innovation etc may not have been as 
|advanced as they are now.  

(While Cuba can be considered more advanced than its Latin 
American neighbours in many respects, its weak economy can be 
blamed to large extent on the command economy and state-run 
enterprise, and to a lesser extent on US embargoes).

On the otherhand, had socialism gained ascendancy in the West, it is 
unlikely that Western society would have been as repressive as in the 
former Soviet Union or China, and the economy and technology 
would have been far more developed than was in achieved in the 
Soviet Union and China - though possibly not to the degree achieved 
in Western Europe under market capitalism (though we *may* have 
seen more 'appropriate technology').

|Environmental standards are higher in developed countries than 
|anywhere else.  Those countries that embrace free-market capitalism 
|and democracy are more likely to advance most rapidly, while also 
|protecting their environment for future generations.

However, the current world-system has failed in four major respects:

1. - environment
Currently, in developed countries environmental management is 
winning the battles but losing the war.  Localised improvements are 
being overshadowed by pervasive generalised degradation (global 
warming, diffusion of toxic compounds into ecosystems, salinity, 
invasive species, intensification of land-use and sea-use).

2. - 3rdW development
Many developing countries have followed IMF prescriptions, and 
instigated Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) etc. but have not 
been able to grow out of the debt trap.  The world capital casino has 
left them out of the game.  Not only is inequity increasing, but many 
countries have shrinking GDP.

3. - disarmament
It can be said that world peace and stability is important to the 
capitalist world system, and hence the capitalist core countries work 
hard to resolve conflict in key areas such as Israel, and the Balkans 
(but not in other areas such as Afghanistan or Sudan).

It has been argued that the capitalist world system would logically 
work towards gradual multilateral disarmament, as military spending 
is non-productive.  However, this is not happening.  The military-
industrial complex remains integral to the world-system.  Military 
spending, recently on the decline, may begin to creep upwards once 
more.

4. - democracy
While the capitalist core countries have encouraged the transformation 
to democracy in developing countries, they have also historically been 
more than ready to do business with autocratic regimes including 
military dictatorships, and have even installed and maintained those 
regimes in a number of cases.  

The greater prevalence of democratic government in the Third World 
is likely due more to the strengthening of civil society worldwide 
where autocratic regimes have become untenable (Philippines, Chile 
and Latin America generally, South Korea, Indonesia etc) rather than 
as a direct product of the capitalist world-system, or the process of 
economic globalisation.  The general process of globalisation (eg 
including globalisation of civil society, and media) would have had an 
impact.  Human rights as a component of US foreign policy may have 
had a small impact although it can be argued that pressure on human 
rights issues is applied selectively according to political opportunism.

Democratic regimes are now seen to be more stable than autocratic 
regimes where the rule of law, rather than the whim of autocrats, 
prevails.  This is important for foreign investment interests.  
Democratic stability reduces uncertainty and allows more accurate 
assessment of risks etc.  In this way transnational capital may have 
made some contribution to expanding democracy.  

But this is democracy at the national level.  Transnational capital has 
little or no interest in democracy at the community level, or real 
democracy at the global level.

For numerous reasons, we may not wish to talk in terms of Revolution 
today, but we may find that the events of 1992-2020 will be recorded 
as Revolution in the historical texts of 2070.
*
[1] Trilateral Commission - see <www.trilateral.org>
[2] Council on Foreign Relations - see <www.cfr.org>
[3] Bilderberg forum - see <www.bilderberg.org>
*
{27. longwaves and macrohistory; 5. evolving world order}
*
*
*
SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE INVESTMENT (SRI)  (PART 1/2)
Investment in portfolios screened for socially responsibility (SRI) in 
the US increased from US$639b in 1995 to almost US$3,000b in 1999 
- a growth of ~45%/an [1].  Another source estimates SRI increased 
from US$1,185b in 1997 to US$2,160bin 1999, an increase of 
~35%/an [2].

There are now at least 175 SRI mutual funds in the US [3]

US SRI funds 1999- issues screened for [4]:
tobacco        	96%
gambling     	86%
alcohol        	83%
environment	79%
human rights	43%
labour          	38%
birth control
   and abortion	23%
animal welfare	15%
weapons         	?
nuclear power	?

Note 'birth control and abortion'.  Environmental screening in 79% of 
portfolios in 1999, is up from 37% in 1997 [5].  

Investment by managed funds in ethical portfolios increased from 9% 
of the total in the US 1998, to 13% in 1999.  In Australia, SRI is 
estimated at around US$520m, or only about 0.7% of total investment 
portfolios in Australia.

A new social investment disclosure law in the UK requiring trustees 
of pension funds to disclose how they account for social responsibility 
issues in their investment strategies, is having some impact [6].  
Pension funds with at least US$300b in assets said that they 
incorporate SRI into their strategies (total pension fund assets in UK 
~US$1100b).  (On the otherhand 14% of funds, representing 4% of 
total pension fund assets, stated specifically that social concerns will 
not be taken into account !)  

Penny Shepherd, Executive Director of UK Social Investment Forum, 
says that 'the SRI disclosure regulation has brought a new level of 
scrutiny by civil society to the investment decisions of pension 
funds.' [7]

The Dow Jones Sustainability Group Index (DJSGI) covers 230 
corporations.  The index rates companies according to five principles:

technology - should be based on innovative technology and 
    organization.. 
governance - includes management responsibility, organizational 
    capability, corporate culture and stakeholder relations. 
shareholders - sound financial returns, long-term economic growth, 
    long-term productivity increases, sharpened global competitiveness, 
    contributions to intellectual capital. 
industry - should lead their industry's shift towards sustainability by 
    demonstrating their commitment 
society - encourage lasting social wellbeing by their appropriate and 
    timely responses to rapid social change, evolving demographics, 
    migratory flows, shifting cultural patterns and the need for life-long 
    learning and continuing education. 

Although these principles are based on 'integrating economic, 
environmental and social growth opportunities', the references to 
'environmental growth opportunities' and definition of the 
commitment to social goals (any half-baked marketing department 
needs to watch for 'changing demographics' and 'shifting cultural 
patterns' !) are vague.  A clear reference to the principles of 
'ecologically sustainable development' and 'social justice' might have 
been more reassuring

The DJSGI prospectus says:
'Also excluded in all DJSGI indexes are companies with more than 
50% sales derived from weapons and armaments (their weighting in 
the index is reduced in cases where 5-50% sales is derived from 
weapons and armaments).'  It also says corporations involved in 
tobacco, alcohol and gambling are excluded.

One would think that producing weapons and armaments is either 
acceptable or not acceptable.  Making this criterion suggests that it is 
not acceptable.  One would thus expect producers of weapons and 
armaments to be excluded altogether.

Virtually all the corporations listed are large transnationals.

For example, they include Western Mining Corporation (anti Kyoto), 
Nestles (aggressive marketing of formula milk), Unilever (destructive 
logging in Solomons et al), Novartis (GM crops), Nike (sweatshop 
labour exploitation).

Since 1995 the DJSGI has outperformed the global equity index [8].  
The share price of Ballard Power Systems, manufacturers of new fuel 
cells, for example, rose 229% in the first six months of 2000 [9].

Other promising companies in the DJSGI include:
Fuel Cell Energy, Inc.[10]
Calpine [11] power generation - combined cycle gas and geothermal
Vestas Wind Systems [12]
AstroPower [13] solar cells and panels

The burgeoning organic food industry is also currently a hot 
investment area [14].

(Part 2/2 of 'Socially responsible investment' in GFB #119).
*
[1] Lee, Thomas  Seattle Times, 09 Nov 2000
<www.seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/business/html98/greenf07_20
000911.html>
[2] Social Investment Forum '1999 report on socially responsible 
investing trends in the United States' - increasing from US$40b in 
1984. <www.socialinvest.org/areas/research/trends/1999-Trends.htm>
[3] Social Investment Forum  op cit.
[4] Social Investment Forum  op cit.
[5] Lee, Thomas  op cit
[6] UK Social Investment Forum <www.uksif.org>
[7] UK Social Investment Forum  op cit
[8] SAM Sustainability Index Fund prospectus
<www.sam-group.com/e/PDF/IF_Prospectus_E.pdf>
[9] SAM Sustainable Performance Group
<www.sam-group.com/e/PDF/SPG_SAR_2000_E.pdf>
[10] Fuel Cell Energy, Inc., formerly Energy Research Corp.
<www.fce.com>
[11] Calpine <www.calpine.com>
[12] Vestas Wind Systems <www.vestas.com> include Build-Own-
Operate-Transfer (BOOT) projects.
[13] AstroPower  <www.astropower.com>
[14] Lee, Thomas op cit.
*
{30. corporate citizenship; 29. new economics}
*
*
*
CALENDAR

16 Dec 2000 International Day for the Preservation of the Ozone Layer

29 Dec 2000 International Day for Biological Diversity
*
*
________________________________________________________
********************************************************
The Global Futures Bulletin is produced by the Institute for Global 
Futures Research (IGFR) twice monthly.  Readers are welcome to 
submit material such as succinct letters, articles and other useful 
information.  Indicate whether you would like your name attached to 
the submitted material.  All communications should be directed to the 
Editor, e-mail <igfr@igfr.org>.  Copyright (c) 2000 Institute for 
Global Futures Research (IGFR).  All rights reserved.
________________________________________________________
********************************************************
********************************************************
PUBLICATIONS OF THE MONTH
********************************************************
'World Resources 2000-2001  People and Ecosystems: The Fraying 
Web of Life'  
World Resources Institute, UNEP, UNDP, World Bank   2000   400 
pages, incl. graphs, tables, index etc

[portions of this report can be downloaded free of charge from 
<www.wri.org/wri/wr2000>]

This report focuses on five critical ecosystems that have been shaped 
by the interaction of physical environment, biological conditions, and 
human intervention: croplands, forests, coastal zones, freshwater 
systems, and grasslands.

The report provides examples of goods and services, such as water 
purification or pollination, which occur naturally in a healthy 
ecosystem, but have to be replicated or supplemented if the natural 
capacity declines.

'Every measure used by scientists to assess the health of the world's
ecosystems tells us that we are drawing on them more than ever and
degrading them at an accelerating pace' 
Dr Klaus Topfer, executive director of UNEP.

* half the world's wetlands were lost during the last century.

* about 9% of the world's tree species are at risk of extinction.

* nearly 70% of the world's major marine fish stocks are either
overfished, or are being fished at their biological limit.

* in the last half century, soil degradation has affected two-thirds
of the world's agricultural land.

* dams and engineering works have strongly or moderately 
fragmented 60% of the world's large river systems.  The length of time 
it takes the average drop of river water to reach the sea has tripled.

[This appears to contradict the notion that deforestation and hard 
urban surfaces have accelerated runoff speed and exacerbated 
vulnerability to flooding.  This apparent contradiction could be 
explained in terms of accelerated flow *into* main rivers *during 
rainstorms*, compared to decelerated flow *along* main rivers *on 
average*].

The first step to good management is to acknowledge the value of 
these goods and services and the tradeoffs that we often make among 
them. 

The second step is to base decisions on current information about the 
capacity of ecosystems to continue to provide goods and services.  
Such information, however, has never before been collected 
comprehensively.  This report is based on the recent $4m Pilot 
Assessment of Global Ecosystems (PAGE) study.  This is to be 
followed by a $20m Millennium Ecosystem Assessment beginning 
2001.

Includes a survey for each ecosystem on food or fibre production, 
water quantity and quality, biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and 
recreation.

The final step to good management is an 'ecosystem approach'.

Through five detailed case studies and many additional examples, 
including 
- Machakos, Kenya (see GFB #65 'Battle for progress - 'Against 
   Nature' debate'  01 Aug 1998), 
- the organic revolution in Cuba (see GFB #101, 'Sustainable 
agriculture and organic food'  01 Feb 2000), and 
- the Mekong (see GFB #43/44  'Dams'  15 Sept 1997, GFB#85  
   'Prospect of war over resources'  01 June 1999), 

the report demonstrates that people in all parts of the world, rich 
and poor, have the capacity to improve the way they manage 
ecosystems. 

Also presents an overview of current global environmental trends in 
population, human well-being, food and water security, consumption 
and waste, energy use, and climate change, including comprehensive 
current data and time series for hundreds of indicators in more than 
150 countries.

AUD$69 inc post, US$34 inc post, UKPnd 26 inc post.
Add US$3 for post for orders outside Australia, US/Canada or UK.
*******************************************************
'Sustainability: The corporate challenge of the 21st century'  
Edited by Dexter Dunphy, Jodie Benveniste, Andrew Griffiths and 
Philip Sutton.  2000     296 pages

Explores two of the major challenges faced by organisations in the 
21stC:
- the successful management of human resources in a time of 
increasing staff turnover, decreasing loyalty, rising stress levels and 
emerging issues of corporate-community relations and social 
responsibility.
- growing pressure from governments, staff and the general public for 
organisations to adopt environmentally responsible operations.

'A comprehensive guidebook for corporations that are really serious 
about shifting to more equitable, ecologically-sustainable operations.'
Hazel Henderson, futurist, author 'Beyond Globalisation'.

' ..gives us the charts we need, we in business must now navigate 
towards a sustainable future!' 
Greg Bourne, Regional President/Director, BP Amoco Aust/NZ

'This is an important work and CEOs everywhere should read it to 
gain a jump start in their own companies.'
Ray C. Anderson, Chairman and CEO, Interface, Inc.

Contents:
PART I: Introduction
1 An introduction to the sustainable corporation - Dexter Dunphy and 
Jodie Benveniste
2 Sustainability and sustainable development - Mark Diesendorf
3 Sustainability doing it - Paul Gilding
PART II: TOWARDS HUMAN SUSTAINABILITY
4 Human resources, capabilities and sustainability - Paul Gollan
5 Technologies and processes for human sustainability - Viv Read
6 Quality of work, home and community life - Jodie Benveniste
PART III: TOWARDS ECOLOGICAL SUSTAINABILITY
7 Building corporate capabilities to promote ecological sustainability: 
   a 'case study' - Philip Sutton
8 Technologies and processes for ecological sustainability - Alan 
   Pears
9 The technology strategy of the sustainable corporation - Hardin 
   Tibbs
PART IV: TOWARDS THE SUSTAINABLE CORPORATION
10 New organisational architectures: creating and retrofitting for 
   sustainability - Andrew Griffiths
11 Guiding principles: the way ahead - Molly Harriss Olson and 
   Phillip Toyne
12 Implementing the sustainable corporation - Dexter Dunphy

AUD$42 inc post, US$30 inc post, UKPnd 18 inc post.
Add US$3 for post for orders outside Australia, US/Canada or UK.
********************************************************
'Another American Century ? - The United States and the World after 
2000'  Nicholas Guyatt   2000   320 pages

Will the 21st Century be another American century?  How does the 
US see its role in the coming years?  What will be the consequences 
for the rest of the world?  

The US finds itself in a pre-eminently powerful position at the start of 
the new century - whether we think in economic, military, ideological 
or cultural terms.

Describes the ways in which the US shapes the world, how it has used 
its power to fashion international institutions - both economic ones 
like the WTO or the IMF, and political organisations like the UN - in 
line with its own interests.  Addresses the many ways in which US 
policymakers and commentators describe the role of the US.  Projects 
the current trends in US foreign policy into the future.

Will continued US domination of the international order make the 
world a safer place ?

'a succinct, bold and penetrating critique of the triumphalist 
ideology which insists on American domination'
Howard Zinn, author of A People's History of the United States

Paperback: AUD$64 inc post, US$28 inc post, UKPnd 18 inc post.
Hardback: AUD$133 inc post, US$63 inc post, UKPnd 42 inc post.
Add US$3 for post for orders outside Australia, US/Canada or UK.
*******************************************************
PUBLICATION REQUEST FORM
Please fill out the following and return it to 
e-mail: <igfr@igfr.org>, or
fax: 61 7 4033 6881, or
post: IGFR, PO Box 263E, Earlville, Qld 4870, Australia

My name
is..........................................................................
............

My organisation (if any)
is...............................................................

My e-mail address
is........................................................................

My mailing address
is......................................................................

............................................................................
............................

I wish to purchase the publication entitled:

............................................................................
............................

My credit card is [place an X in a) or b) or c)]

a)............Visa,   
or
b)...........Mastercard,   
or
c)..........American Express

Name on creditcard is
.....................................................................

Date of expiry
is..........................................................................
.....

Creditcard number is  .. .. .. .. - .. .. .. .. - .. .. .. .. - .. .. .. ..

Amount I am paying is:...................................

******************************************************
Note: If you are paying by personal cheque from outside Australia, 
please add US$5 to cover bank processing charges

If you wish to pay by Direct Deposit, please e-mail us for details.
******************************************************
The IGFR is a not-for-profit organisation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Institute for Global Futures Research (IGFR).
P.O. Box 263E, Earlville, QLD 4870, Australia.
E-mail: <igfr@igfr.org>.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


