This past weekend I finished a book a friend suggested, “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man”.  In it the author, John Perkins, tells the story - mostly his own - of how the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank (and others) worked with and seemingly for Halliburton, MAIN (which is now defunct but was the company he worked for), and many other similar companies to load third world nations with debt that the lenders (The US, IMF, World Bank, etc.) knew would never be repaid.  These loans were made on the basis of what the author did for a living - wildly optimistic, some (he) would now argue fraudulent - projections of economic growth based upon the work they were lending for in the first place.  It was a very self fulfilling cycle for those involved, and it left messes all over the world.

Indonesia, for instance, would be projected to grow at say 30% a year for 20 years if they accepted the loans to then hire MAIN (or Halliburton or similar engineering firms) to build them infrastructure.  Typically this included bridges, roads, a larger electric grid, etc.  In almost all cases, according to Perkins, these projections were wildly creative.  His quick career advancement was based in large part to his ability to constantly deliver what everyone wanted: “research” to support that Indonesia, Panama, Iraq, _____, could pay back the loans once their nation had the necessary infrastructure in place.  In actuality the point wasn’t to build the nations as was claimed but for them to default on loans or at least be highly dependent upon further generosity by the institutions and the US.  In exchange the US got oil, political clout, control, access to cheap labor, tremendously large paydays for engineering companies like MAIN and Halliburton, and oil (yes, I know I already mentioned it).

I am not here to debate the validity of all of his points, many of which I missed, but the larger ones I certainly hit on.  It is a worthy read, an interesting layer on history, and, at least in my mind, at least partially and disturbingly accurate.  It is my personal sense that especially towards the end of the book the book loses steam and he gains it.  For me this is where it suffers a bit, but this is not meant as a book review.  

Regardless of how much credence you choose to give the book and argument, there are two fundamental points that are hard to miss: oil and debt.  In it we (the US) are hunting, among other things, for oil.  Our weapon of choice is debt.  The name, “Economic Hit Man”, alludes to this.  We used fancy titles to load countries up with debt to gain access to oil, the story goes.  That this debt led in many cases to civil unrest, a dramatic rise in the disparity between rich and poor word wide, and the rise of religious extremism and its nasty cousin terrorism seems pretty clear, and is argued well.  

For all the talk of a green movement now and the need for the US and other nations to be less dependent on oil economically, politically, and certainly environmentally, this book really drives home a point that sometimes gets lost.  There are incredibly effective, remarkably profitable, and long embedded forces in the world and especially our country that won’t let this happen.  The interdependency of the world’s economies is due to many things, but perhaps nothing as much as oil and debt.  Neither is going away anytime soon as I am sure that the tactics people in power are using are far more advanced then described.  This book was written mostly about events from the early 1970’s - 1992 or so.  Yet it is not dated. Much of what you read about daily has its roots in these events - especially in the Middle East.  

In reading the book and considering the implications of massive amounts of debt on people around the world that couldn’t afford it and never benefited from it, I also couldn’t help but think of the situation that the US and many other nations are going through right now.  At some level you have to wonder if these tactics that worked so well around the world weren’t applied - knowingly or not - by mortgage bankers and lenders in the US to folks in such remote places as Arizona, Florida, and Detroit.

Perhaps this is a stretch, but, honestly I don’t think it is.  The mortgage crisis in the US is a whole other story for another day, but as I read this book it was hard not to think that the EHM’s, as they were called, eventually set their sites closer to home.  

In housing there are two fundamental topics these days: green and debt.  Everyone wants their home to be more green (they should, US homes consume 40% or more of the US energy needs), and almost everyone is suffering from deflated housing values, foreclosures in their neighborhood or worse, and all of the inherent offshoots of these issues: an inability to move or relocate easily, lack of consumer confidence, high unemployment, etc.  ”Confessions of an Economic Hitman” isn’t about houses, and it isn’t about building more sustainable homes, but drawing connections isn’t hard at all. Our country, like Panama, Iraq, Indonesia, and many others got loaded up on way too much debt based upon projections for the future that never came to pass. At the same time, we are as dependent on oil, and in many ways I fear more, than ever.  There are a few bright spots in our nation and world’s movement to be less dependent on oil, and awareness is one of them.  Awareness, though, doesn’t change much.  

The reality is it isn’t all that hard to build very energy efficient homes.  People, builders, and architects can do it, if they try.  I, for one, am unaware of a more important place for people to make a difference in the environment.    As I said above, about 40% of American energy use is from homes.  In Germany, and even here in limited cases, Passive Houses are a reality.  Passive homes use very, very little energy.  They may not be for everyone, but the current standard should not be either.  What is the exact number? I don’t know.  What I do know is that almost all new houses have close to know real effort spent improving upon this, and that older homes are typically far worse.  If the average is 40% of energy use, what are the real energy hogs using?  What percentage are McMansions using?  How about homes that are 150 years old?  Wasted energy costs money, feeds pollution, contributes to the strengths of people and nations that you’d prefer not have it, and generally endangers the world.  

Our goal is to eventually get to net-zero energy for our homes.  Through proper insulation, solar as appropriate, and geo-thermal it can be done, and we will do it. You don’t have to build new to benefit from this.  For renovations of older homes the improvements that can be made are tangible and important, and the resources saved by not building new are significant and worthwhile.  If this is something that interests you let’s talk.