Ironic as it may seem, the present economic slowdown may, indirectly, harm efforts towards concrete political action on environmental issues. People whose wallets are hurting from increased financial pressure in the U.S. will now be looking intently at the economic credentials of presidential candidates, making this a priority over all other issues.

Economic woes dominated the US news this week - and have the potential to reshape the contours of the presidential race as it enters a crucial phase.

The dramatic intervention of the Federal Reserve, which made a big emergency cut in US interest rates, and the wild swings on world stock markets, mark a recognition by policymakers and investors alike that the US economy could be veering into recession.

In fact, most Americans believe the US has entered a recession already.

And since December, opinion polls have shown that the economy is seen as the most important issue facing the country - replacing Iraq, which topped the polls for the last few years.

This could have major effects on the prospects of the Republican and Democratic candidates running for the White House as they reach a key stage in the contest, with half the country voting in presidential primaries on 5 February. -- BBC

Across the Pacific we see this tug of war happening as well, but under an entirely different political system. The government of China, a nation whose burgeoning population and booming economy is putting major strain on the environment -- in terms of significant levels of air and water pollution, water shortages, etc. -- is endeavouring to think ahead, yet also struggling to apply constraints on local officials that are enjoying record incomes.

While national leaders in Beijing have shown greater interest in recent months in cleaning up the environment, their efforts have frequently met resistance from provincial and local officials more interested in maximizing economic growth. -- NY Times

This is where a shift in mainstream public thinking is so important. If public priority rests only on a superficial short-term understanding of a healthy economy, as opposed to a deeper long-term understanding of economic sustainability, then business-as-usual may persevere for yet another presidential term in the United States -- the nation with the greatest responsibility ability to foster and encourage change.

A post from earlier today drives this point home. One big economic push is in the direction of biofuels -- a push that incentivises (with taxpayer funding) a major rise in monocrop farming systems: more chemicals, an enlarged dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico, more GMO seeds, more water use and contamination, more soil loss and decreased biodiversity. It's short term thinking that makes a great deal of money for a few key players -- corporations like Archer Daniels Midland and Monsanto, as well as a few of the larger corn farmers. Everyone else loses, both in the U.S. and further afield. What is not considered is that even those key players ultimately lose out, as the resources that are the very basis of their wealth are getting undermined with every passing year.

This last year's problem with colony collapse disorder (CCD) is a case in point. The above detrimental effects of monocrop farming also serve to hasten the demise of keystone species such as pollinators -- affecting not only our food systems, but also bringing a chain-reaction of knock-on effects in other species, both flora and fauna.

Click for full cartoon Courtesy: Throbgoblins

It seems to me that the poor in this world, both in the U.S. and abroad, are less able to facilitate change than their wealthier peers. It's hard to change your way of life when you're too busy, as a small cog in a big consumer-based machine, just trying to make ends meet. The wealthy, however -- those that have a greater 'freedom of expression' -- are, unfortunately, the last to suffer the consequences of environmental degradation. Their financial security enables them to ride out the storm better than most. In other words, those that are profiting most from resource extraction have less incentive to change, even though they have the greatest power to do so.

Unless heightened awareness soaks through the whole rank and file of society, policy decisions will continue to favour the wealthy, to the detriment of all; the poor, and also, inevitably, the rich. We have mainstream media filling our minds with industry aims, not social necessities. I like to imagine what could happen if just a fraction of the massive subsidies enjoyed by planet-destroying corporations were instead diverted into a media campaign to inspire a concerned public with visions of sustainability and hope. If only we can get people to look, not just at tomorrow, but at the future -- a shift to a new green, healthy economy. Healthy in the fullest sense of the word.

Ask your political representative what they intend to do to facilitate transition -- transition to an economy that actually has a future.

Further Reading:

• Escaping the Matrix -- Lifestyles without Limits
• The Advertising Culture and the World We Won't Let Go