date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 02:24:35 +0800 from: "Institute for Global Futures Research (IGFR)" 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: . ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 [9] Homen, Kim University of Stockholm, quoted in BBC News 8 Sept 2000 'Bacteria 'hasten climate change' [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 [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 [2] Council on Foreign Relations - see [3] Bilderberg forum - see * {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 [2] Social Investment Forum '1999 report on socially responsible investing trends in the United States' - increasing from US$40b in 1984. [3] Social Investment Forum op cit. [4] Social Investment Forum op cit. [5] Lee, Thomas op cit [6] UK Social Investment Forum [7] UK Social Investment Forum op cit [8] SAM Sustainability Index Fund prospectus [9] SAM Sustainable Performance Group [10] Fuel Cell Energy, Inc., formerly Energy Research Corp. [11] Calpine [12] Vestas Wind Systems include Build-Own- Operate-Transfer (BOOT) projects. [13] AstroPower [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 . 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 ] 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: , 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: . ------------------------------------------------------------------------------