Francois Houtart’s life is described below, and is also known for authoring this landmark manifesto, “From Common Goods to the Common Good of Humanity“, which we strongly recommend for your reading. We were lucky enough to have an office close to his during the first semester of 2014, in Quito, Ecuador, as we were working on the first commons transition project in history (the FLOK Society project). This was the occasion of many deep conversations and visits to the indigenous center he helped found. Francois Houtart was a ‘saint’ of the commons, if such thing would exist. Many people will miss him.

The following tribute was written by Tina Ebro.

Tina Ebro: Indeed Francois Houtart ‘s well-spent life is a source of inspiration to all of us. He was an emeritus professor of sociology and theology and a well-known public intellectual. But his engagements went far beyond the academe.As an activist in this milleneum, he worked tirelessly to explain the current multifaceted crisis and corporate-led globalisation, and has produced a path breaking document and project, Universal Declaration for the Common Good. It could serve as a valuable framework for social movements and provide more credibility, coherence and vitality to struggles for transformative change.

His influence has been significant to activists in the South especially to those who advanced liberation theology and organised basic Christian communities. For them he was a fountain of humanity and compassion,and his humility and wisdom have inspired me and many comrades in the Philippines and in the Asia-Pacific.

====================

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION FOR THE COMMON GOOD OF HUMANITY PROJECT

This nascent project whose elaboration is fruit of an international collaboration of jurists and social leaders, is presented by the World Forum for Alternatives to the social movements and organizations attending the “peoples’ summit” in Rio de Janeiro in June, 2012, to solicit their observations and proposals before a formal presentation of  this document at the occasion of the 2013 World Social Forum in Tunisia.  All contributions by groups and individuals are welcome; please send them to the following email address: [email protected] 

PREAMBLE

We live in a critical time for the survival of natural and human life.  The attacks against the planet are multiplying, affecting all living species, ecosystems, biodiversity, even the climate.  Peoples’ and communities’ lives are destroyed by land dispossession. The monopolistic concentration of capital, the hegemony of the financial sector, deforestation, monoculture agriculture, the massive use of toxic agents, wars, cultural imperialism, austerity policies and the destruction of social advances, are Humanity’s daily bread.

We live in times of a multidimensional crisis; it is financial, economic, food, energetic, climactic.  It is a systemic crisis, a crisis of values and civilization, with logics of death.  This historic moment does not allow for partial answers, but demands a search for alternatives.

We live in times marked by a demand for coherency.  The Resolutions of the General Assembly of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the United Nations’ International Covenants on Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966), the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States (1974), the World Charter for Nature (1982), the Declaration on the Right to Development (1986), the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (1992), the Earth Charter (2000), the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity (2001), the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007), among others, demand the articulation of a holistic perspective and an integrated ecological, economic, political and cultural system for decision-making, in the service of life.

We live in times in which human beings are realizing they constitute the conscious part of a Nature that can live without them and that they are progressively destroying the earth.  This destruction results from the irrationality of their predatory actions guided by a logic which seeks profit and capitalist accumulation and is fed by an anthropocentric vision of linear infinite progress on a planet with inexhaustible resources.  In order to survive, we must shift from anthropocentrism to biocentrism.

We live in times when social and political movements’ actions are multiplying as they fight from below for ecological justice and peoples’ collective rights.  The perception that the life of Humanity is a common and shared project, conditional on the life of the planet is growing and is expressed in various documents such as: the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Peoples (Algiers, 1976), the Beijing Declaration of Indigenous Women (Beijing, 1995) and the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth (Cochabamba, 2010) is requiring an intense shared effort which respects differences.

To reestablish the rights of nature and to construct interpersonal solidarity globally, tasks inseparably linked, a new initiative parallel to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is today necessary.  Its aim is to redefine, from a holistic perspective, the essential elements of humanity’s collective life on the planet, in order to propose a new paradigm around which social and political movements can converge.

The Declaration attempts (1) to shift  from exploiting nature as a natural resource to respecting the earth as the source of all life; (2) to privilege use value over exchange value in economic activity; (3) to introduce the principle of spreading democracy in all human relations, including gender relations, and in all social institutions and (4) to promote  interculturality to allow all cultures, knowledge, philosophies and religions to clarify the perception of reality, to participate in the construction of the ethic necessary for its permanent construction , and contribute to the anticipations that permit to say, “Another world is possible.”  It is the paradigm of the “Common Good of Humanity” or the principle of the “Good Life” (Buen Vivir) that offers the possibility, capacity and responsibility to produce and reproduce the planet’s existence and the physical, cultural and spiritual life of all human beings in the world.  Hence, the proposal  of a Universal Declaration.

THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF THE COMMON GOOD OF HUMANITY

– (1) To respect Nature as the source of physical, cultural and spiritual life

Article 1 (To establish the symbiosis between the earth and the human gender, the conscious part of nature)

Nature is the origin of the multiple forms of life, including humanity, having the earth as its home.  The core and crust, air, sunlight, atmosphere, water, soil; the rivers, oceans, forests, flora, fauna, biodiversity; the seeds and living species’ genomes are all elements which constitute her reality.  Nature should be respected in her beauty and her fundamental integrity, her equilibriums and the richness of her ecosystems which produce and reproduce biodiversity, and in her capacity for regeneration.  It is the responsibility of the human race to consciously respect ecological justice and the rights of nature, on which depend its existence and the Common Good of Humanity.

All practices that destroy the regenerative capacities of “Mother Earth” such as the savage exploitation of natural resources, the destructive use of chemical products, the massive emission of greenhouse gases, the depletion of soils and aquatic reserves by monoculture agriculture, the irrational use of energy, and the production of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons are inconsistent with humans’ responsibility to nature, the Common Good of Humanity and the Good Life (Buen Vivir) and for these reasons susceptible to sanctions.

Article 2 (To build the harmony between all elements of nature)

The peoples of the earth have the duty to live in harmony with all other elements of nature.  They should not initiate any development intervention which could gravely or irreversibly endanger the life of nature which is also the basis for the reproduction of the physical, cultural and spiritual life of humanity..  The principles of information provision and prior consultation of communities or peoples concerned by mineral extraction projects, public works, and all other actions using natural riches should be the rule.

All actions, institutions and environmental systems that implement development models contrary to the integrity and reproduction of the ecological system are inconsistent with the Common Good of Humanity and are therefore will be submitted to sanctions.

Article 3 (To care for the earth, the foundation of all physical, cultural and spiritual life)

Nature is a unique and finite reality, the source of life for all species that inhabit her and all living entities not yet born.  The earth can be administered by human beings with the necessary guarantees for the continuity of the administration, but it cannot be appropriated, commodified, or made a source of speculation.  It cannot suffer irreversible systematic aggression for the purpose of any mode of production.  Natural resources (mineral, oil, ocean, forest resources) are collective heritage and assets that cannot be appropriated by individuals, corporations or financial groups.  The elements of the earth (soil, air, water, sea, rivers, jungles, forests, flora, fauna, spaces, genomes, etc.) should be administered, extracted  and treated with the upmost respect for the reproduction of ecosystems, biodiversity, species’ lives, the wellfare of both current and future generations.

The contamination of water, soil, the seas; the patenting of nature; the privatization of the earth; the commodification of natural riches and natural elements necessary for the reproduction of life among living species, particularly water, oxygen and seeds, are all inconsistent with a constructive respect for nature, the Common Good of Humanity, and are therefore prohibited and susceptible to sanctions.

Article 4 (To assure the regenerating capacity of the earth)

It is urgent that the regenerative capacity of the earth be restored.  All peoples and individuals are obligated to contribute to this end.  Environmental impact inventories and audits must be implemented, assessments and reparations for damages administered.  All peoples and individuals and especially industries, corporations and governments, have the responsibility to reduce, reuse and recycle the materials used in the production, circulation and consumption of goods.

Practices of planned obsolescence, the waste of energy and other primary materials, irresponsible disposal of hazardous waste, and the omission or avoidance of ecological restoration are inconsistent with the Common Good of Humanity, and therefore susceptible to sanctions.

– (2) Economic production at the service of life and her continuity

Article 5 (To organize social forms of production and, without private accumulation)

It is necessary for the Common Good of Humanity and the Good Life (Buen Vivir) that people, institutions and economic systems prioritize social forms of ownership of the principal means of production and economic circulation: community, family, communal, cooperative, citizen, and public, thus avoiding processes of individual or cooperative accumulation that provoke unjust social inequality.  Workers’ and consumers’ control of the production and circulation of goods and services will be organized according to adequate social forms, from cooperative to processes of citizen participation and nationalization.

The appropriation of the means of production and circulation by individuals or corporations for the purposes of private capitalist accumulation is contrary to the Common Good of Humanity and the Good Life (Buen Vivir) and is therefore prohibited.

Article 6 (To give priority of use value over exchange value)

The economic system of production and circulation is destined to satisfy the needs and capacities of all peoples and all individuals on the planet.  Accessing use values is a fundamental right necessary for the production and reproduction of life.  The exchange value, product of commercialization, should be subjected to use value rather than serving private capital accumulation and creating financial bubbles resulting from speculation and being a source of large social inequalities.

All individual or corporate actions that commodify use values as mere exchange values, that instrumentalize them with advertising for irrational consumption by consumers, and that encourage speculation for the private accumulation of capital, are inconsistent with the Common Good of Humanity.  Also inconsistent with the Common Good of Humanity are: tax havens; banking secrecy; speculation on food commodities, natural resources and energy sources.  Public and private “odious debts” and poverty as the result of socially unjust relations, are declared illegal.

Article 7 (To promote dignified and non-exploitative labor)

Processes of production and circulation should ensure workers a dignified, participatory job that is adaptive to family and cultural life, that fosters their skills and ensures them an adequate material existence.

All modern forms of slavery, servitude and labor exploitation, especially of children, for the purposes of individual profit or private accumulation of surplus value as well as limitations on labor organizing are inconsistent with the Common Good of Humanity and Good Life (Buen Vivir) and are therefore prohibited.

Article 8 (To reconstruct territories)

Facing “globalization” which has favored a unipolar economy, the concentration of decision-making powers, the hegemony of financial capital and the irrational circulation of goods and services, it is indispensible to reconstruct territories as a base for food, energetic sovereignty and for the main exchanges, to regionalize economies and base them on principles of complementarity and solidarity; and for the peripheral regions, to “delink” from the hegemonic economic center, in order to assure commercial, financial and productive autonomy..

The constitution of monopolies and oligopolies, whatever their area of productive or financial activity, are inconsistent with the Common Good of Humanity and are therefore prohibited.

Article 9 (To guarantee access to common goods and universal social protection)

There are certain common goods that are indispensible for the collective life of individuals and peoples and that constitute inalienable rights.  These are: food, housing, health, education, and material and immaterial communication.  Various forms of citizen control or social property exist for the effective organization of access to these goods.  “Universal protection” is a right of all peoples and individuals, a responsibility of public authorities that should be assured by an adequate fiscal policy.

The privatization of public services in order to contribute to capital accumulation is inconsistent with the Common Good of Humanity  and is therefore prohibited.  The following are susceptible for sanctions: speculating on food, housing, health, education, communication as is corruption while exercising these rights.

– (3) Collective democratic organization based on participation

Article 10 (To generalize democracy and the construction of the subject)

All peoples and human beings are subjects of their histories and have the right to a collective social and political organization that guarantees this.  This organization must ensure harmony with nature and access to the material needs of life trough production and circulation systems built on social justice principles.  To achieve these goals, collective organization should allow everyone’s participation in the production and reproduction of the life of the planet and human beings, i.e., of the Common Good of Humanity.  The organizing principle of this goal is to spread democracy into all social relationships: family, gender, work, political authority, between peoples and nations and in all social, political, economic, cultural and religious institutions. Along with political forms of participatory democracy, participation should be organized in all sectors of common life, economic, social, cultural.

All non-democratic forms of organizing society’s political, economic, social and cultural life are inconsistent with the Common Good of Humanity and the Good Life (Buen Vivir) and are therefore prohibited.  Genocides are condemned as irreparable acts of discrimination.  Susceptible to sanctions are all discriminations based on gender, race, nation, culture, sexual orientation, physical or mental capacity, religion or ideological affiliation.  Along with political forms of participatory democracy, participation should be encouraged in all sectors of common life.

Article 11 (To buid equality between men and women)

Particular importance will be given to relations between men and women, unequal since time immemorial in the various types of societies that have existed during human history.  All institutions and all social and cultural systems should recognize, respect and promote the right to a life in plentitude for women in equality with men.

Social and economic practices, institutions and cultural or religious systems that defend discrimination or actively discriminate against women are inconsistent with the Common Good of Humanity.  All forms of masculine domination, particularly differences in wage income and the non-recognition of family domestic work linked to the reproduction of life, are susceptible to sanctions.

Article 12 (To prohibit war)

Democratic international relations do not allow the use of war to resolve conflicts.  In this day and age, peace is not guaranteed by an arms race.  The availability of nuclear, biological, chemical weapons directly jeopardizes the life of Humanity.  Arms have become a business.  Their production causes an enormous waste of energy, natural resources and human talents; their use means, aside from the loss of lifes, serious environmental destruction.

The manufacture, possession and use of weapons of mass destruction, the accumulation of conventional weapons to guarantee regional hegemony and control of natural resources, hegemonic regional pacts, military solutions to solve internal political problems are inconsistent with the Common Good of Humanity and are therefore prohibited.

Article 13 (To build the State on the basis of Common Good)

The role of the State, as collective administrator, is to guarantee the Common Good, i.e. the public interest, as compared to individual or private interests.  Democratic participation is therefore needed to define the Common Good (constitutions) and how it will be applied.  All peoples and communities of the earth, in the plurality of each of their members, organizations and social movements, have the right to political systems of direct or delegated participation with a revocable mandate.  Regional governments and international organizations, particularly the United Nations, must be constructed on democratic principles.  The same is true for all institutions that represent specific interests or economic sectors, such as industrial companies, estates, financial or commercial organisms, political parties, religious institutions or trade unions, NGOs, sports or cultural groups, humanitarian organizations.

All dictatorial or authoritarian forms of exercising political or economic power, where no representative minorities, formal or informal, monopolize decisions without participation, initiative or popular control, are inconsistent with the Common Good of Humanity and are therefore prohibited.  Also prohibited are public subsidies for organizations, social movements, political parties or religious institutions that do not respect democratic principles or that practice gender or racial discrimination.

Article 14 (To respect the rights of indigenous peoples)

Native peoples have the right to be recognized in their differences.  For this they need the material and institutional foundations necessary for the reproduction of their customs, languages, worldviews and communal institutions: a protected territory of reference, a bilingual education, the ability to have their own judicial system, public representation, etc.  They make important contributions to the contemporary world: the protection of Mother Earth, resistance to the extractive-export mode of production and accumulation, and a holistic vision of the natural and social reality.

Actions, institutions and economic, political and cultural systems that destroy, segregate, discriminate against or hinder the physical, cultural and spiritual life of native peoples are inconsistent with the Common Good of Humanity and are therefore prohibited.

Article 15 (The recognize the right to resistance)

All peoples and social groups have the right to develop critical thought, to practice peaceful resistance and  if necessary, insurrection against destructive actions taken against nature, human life, collective or individual liberties.

Thought censorship, the criminalization of resistance and the violent repression of liberation movements, are inconsistent with the Common Good of Humanity and are prohibited.

– (4) The intercultural as a dynamic of thought and social ethics

Article 16 (To build Interculturality)

The Common Good of Humanity requires the participation of all cultures, knowledge, arts, philosophies, religions, and folklore in interpreting reality and in the development of the ethics necessary to its construction, the production of its symbolic, linguistic and aesthetic expressions, as well as the formulation of utopias.  The cultural richness of humanity, which throughout history has become patrimony, cannot be destroyed.  Interculturality assumes the mixed contribution of all cultures, with their diversity, to the various dimensions of the Common Good of Humanity: respect for nature as the source of life, the priority of use value over exchange value within processes of justice, widespread democratization and diversity and cultural exchange.

Cultural ethnocide, the practices, institutions and economic, political and cultural systems that hide, discriminate against or commodify cultural achievements of peoples and those that impose a mono-cultural homogenization, identifying human development with Western culture, are inconsistent with the Common Good of Humanity and therefore prohibited.  Also prohibited are the practices, institutions, and political-cultural systems that demand the return of an illusory past, often endorsing violence or discrimination against other peoples.

Article 17 (To assure the right to information and the circulation of knowledge)

All peoples of the earth have the right to information, to exchange knowledge, expertise and information useful for constructing the Common Good of Humanity.

Monopolies of the media by groups with financial or industrial power, commodification of the public by advertising agencies, exclusive and non-participatory control by States over the content of information, and patents of scientific knowledge that impede the circulation of knowledges useful for the well-being of peoples are inconsistent with the Common Good of Humanity and are therefore prohibited.

– (5) Obligations and sanctions for noncompliance with the declaration

Article 18 (Applying the paradigm of the Common Good of Humanity)

All peoples of the earth have the right that any noncompliance with or violation of the rights set forth in this Declaration, that in its entirety aims to construct permanently the Common Good of Humanity, or the non-execution of the mechanisms set forth herein, shall be known, prosecuted, punished and redressed according to the scale and impact of the damage caused, in agreement with, when they do exist, with the dispositions of domestic or international law. Short or middle range transition measures    (reforms and regulations) are allowing to change the relations with nature, to establish the priority of use value, to generalize democracy and to create multiculturality. However they should not become only adaptations of the existing mode of accumulation to new ecological and social demands.

All impunity and all full stop laws, amnesty or any other dealing that denies victims justice, that is, to nature and her conscious part humankind, is inconsistent with the Common Good of Humanity and the Good Life (Buen Vivir) and are consequently null and void.

Photo by Presidencia de la República del Ecuador

The post A Tribute to François Houtart appeared first on P2P Foundation.

How relocating energy in the commons helps scaling-up renewables & saving energy

Is energy a mere commodity, or is it a common good? Why is this relevant in the first place? Here we look at why energy is part of our commons, from the sources to the product itself. In a second time, we will see that relocating energy in the commons has very important implications: it helps solve the energy efficiency dilemma (i.e., we need to reduce our energy consumption but who’s going to pay for that?) and scale-up renewables.

What is a commons?

Once upon a time… there was an alpine pasture, where cattle from the village came to graze. The air was fresh and brisk, there was enough grass for the animals. But it was also a delicate, sensitive environment: put too much pressure on it (too much cattle) and it would be ruined in no-time… In other words, the pasture was a finite resource, which could support a finite number of cattle.

A (finite) natural resource, that is necessary to all: that’s a natural commons.

There are three way of dealing with natural commons:

1. The commons (e.g., the pasture) is claimed by someone, who controls its access and monetize it: it becomes a commodity and the usage profits mainly to a few.
2. There is no communication in the community and no rules are set to use the commons. Individuals tend to exploit the commons as much as possible in order to maximise their own profit and compete for accessing to it. Eventually, the commons is destroyed. This is how Garrett Hardin described modern humans’ behaviour in the “Tragedy of the Commons” in 1968, which led him to argue that only privatization (as in 1.) or state regulation are successful mode of governance for the commons.
3. People actually talk to each other and are conscious of the problem of over-using their commons. Therefore, communities organise themselves and set some rules, compensation mechanisms and sanctions against free-riders. Benefits are shared and sustained. This is what Elinor Ostrom (and her colleagues) reported upon throughout her career: communities are able to (and do) manage their common goods by themselves.

Next to the finite or physical resources defining the classical commons framework, we can think of other non-finite and more abstract resources that can be treated as commons and referred to as social commons: digital commons, knowledge commons, health commons, urban commons… Shifting the paradigm from commodity to commons helps to reduce the (artificial) scarcity of these resources (created and sustained by privatisation and monetisation) by having a common-ownership or no-ownership. This is best illustrated by the creative common licences, which allow (for some of them) companies to sell a product but not to claim its ownership (which means that other companies can sell the same product, modify it, etc…).

And finally, there’s the act of commoning: doing together, sharing, benefiting from each other. As we saw in the previous episode, this is one of the recurrent arguments given by members of energy cooperatives as a ground and as a co-benefit from their project.

Renewable energy is a common good

SCAD Museum of Arts, Work by Nari Ward (“We the people”) Photo by JR P CC-BY-NC2.0

Here we will focus on renewable energy (RE) but this discussion also applies to fossil fuels. According to the definitions above, RE is a commons and we demonstrate this using three different viewpoints:

• the source (wind, sun…),
• the product (energy and more specifically electricity), and
• the energy transition process (i.e., the switch towards clean renewables).

The source. The renewable sources of energy (especially wind, sun, water and in a lesser extend biomass) are clearly part of our natural commons: no-one can claim their ownership and they belong to all. Furthermore, and this is particularly important, they are finite resources. It is therefore crucial to make sure that the access to these resources is equally shared throughout the society.

The product. Electricity and energy in a broader sense are part of the social commons. Indeed, accessing to energy being necessary in modern societies, it becomes a common good. And due to finite sources, the amount of energy available is also finite.
It is crucial to avoid the appropriation of this common good by individuals or single actors (i.e., free-riders) in order to prevent the creation of an artificial scarcity and efficiently fight energy poverty. If this does not sound too serious in the western word, it is a huge issue in poorer countries and has been placed in the United Nation agenda for 2030 as the sustainable development goal number 7.

Energy transition. By looking at the process of switching from fossil fuels to renewable sources, we enter into the field of “climate change mitigation”. Decarbonising the energy sector falls into the global commons: every gramme of CO2 released in the atmosphere will have an effect on all of us. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stresses the threat posed by free-riders to our mitigation efforts (summary for policy makers, AR5): “Effective mitigation will not be achieved if individual agents advance their own interests independently.”
As one can read on the website of the Mercator research Institute on Global Commons (MCC), energy is also part of the social commons: “These are public goods providing access to health services, education, clean water, sanitation, energy, or transport and communication infrastructure. They are essential for human well-being as the level of provision of these goods has significant effects on both growth and inequality.” The MCC describes the dilemma of the energy transition as an overuse of the global commons and an under-provision of the social commons.

The energy transition is a huge task for our generation and it creates both challenges and opportunities. On the winners’ side, a new market is being created, which is already profitable enough to attract institutional investors. Large investment in renewables from private sources is potentially a good news, as it speeds up the energy transition. However, there are serious drawbacks in the commodification of energy. First, the returns on investment will remain in private hands, which is a loss of revenue for society and increases the concentration of capital into the hands of a few. Second, as these investments are profit-driven, the primary goal is to install the technology providing the highest income, regardless of people’s needs and desires (so not necessarily the appropriate technology).
To summarize, here is how the EU Horizon 2020 research project REScoop presents the social relevance of framing RE sources in the commons (policy recommendation):
“Wind, solar, hydro, biomass and geothermal energy are natural resources. They in fact belong to no one and are in principle available to all. They are common goods. From the perspective of social justice, more attention therefore must be paid to the way in which decentralised renewable energy sources are managed. In a world where energy is scarce, these sources of energy will mean income for the operators. Citizens and users therefore have every interest in keeping this local energy production in their own hands as much as possible. Governments too have every interest in anchoring decentralised renewable energy with the users as much as possible so that the added value of the production also benefits society. This is especially true for wind energy, an energy source that extends over a larger area, but ultimately is exploited on a small site. The benefit of this exploitation should extend to the widest possible group of people. Thus, the exploitation of wind energy should not simply be privatised, but also allocated on the basis of socio-economic criteria.”

Reducing energy consumption

The people’s windmill – outside European Parliament, Brussels More than a 150 people formed the shape of a giant wind turbine in front of the European Parliament in Brussels to call for more support for community renewable energy projects. Photo by Friends of the Earth CC-BY-NC 2.0

One aspect of commodifying energy that is often overlooked, is that in order to increase the profits, utilities have an inherent incentive to produce and sell as much energy as possible. This is totally counteracting all efforts made to increase energy efficiency and conservation.
As recognized by several experts, reducing our greenhouse gas emissions (by increasing our efficient use of energy) is a key pillar of the energy transition. However, efficiency measures are often presented as a burden, which is costly and does not generate enough profits.
As stated by John Byrne and his team at University of Delaware, effectively “relocating energy in the commons” (I stole this expression from this remarkable and very accessible paper) has the double advantage to stimulate the installation of renewable power plants and save energy simultaneously, whereas energy as a commodity leads to a state of “energy obesity”. This “commonification” of energy is presented through the Sustainable Energy Utilities (SEU), which are community-based institutions aiming at designing and financing local energy projects. The idea is to consider the energy consumption of a community globally, with the primary aim being to save it: when energy is needed, SEU should implement an appropriate renewable technology, and incorporate heat and transport systems in the design.

Originally posted on energycommonsblog

Lead image: Energy cooperative from the US, Touchstone Energy.  Photo by David Ingram CC-BY-NC2.0

The post Is renewable energy a commons? appeared first on P2P Foundation.