Week 4 (Blog) 2

Where Tim talks about the relationships between ecological economics and environmental economics... I have commented and my comments look like this.

So, mostly the two don't seem very different, and this is covered by Tim at the bottom, but there are definately wordage differences and maybe fundamental understanding differences... my head spins.

Welcome Eco-Econers

Since John decided to show his magnanimous-ity and send all of our hard earned readers over to the new Ecological Econ blog, I thought I would share my views (and I repeat these are MY views only) on the relationship between Ecological Economics and Environmental Economics--and yes I think this is a complementary relationship. To do so I will use the Position Statement of the U.S. Society for Ecological Economics:

My comments are in italics:

Position of the United States Society for Ecological Economics on Economic Growth

Whereas:

1) Economic growth, as understood by most professional economists, policy officials and private citizens, is an increase in the production and consumption of goods and services, and;

As long as you include nonmarket goods and services (such as environmental amenities). Environmental economists have spent over 50 years developing methods to measure the value of environmental and more recently ecosystem services. My understanding is that this would somehow include environmental services such as cleaning of the air, water, etc.; production of usable resources such as trees, plants, views, etc.; and so on - no one pays the earth for her contribution to the economic division.

2) Economic growth occurs when there is an increase in the multiplied product of population and per capita consumption, and;

Subject to the qualifications in my response to 1), I agree. But it is measured in dollars and not "units of production" which might be harder to tabulate, but also might give a better idea in WHAT was increasing... then again, who would want to read/look through all that?

3) The U.S. economy grows as an integrated whole consisting of agricultural, extractive, manufacturing, and services sectors (and the supporting infrastructure) that requires physical inputs of non-renewable resources, land and water, and that produces wastes, and;

Agreed. Here's a nice simple model of an economy from the eyes of an environmental economist. Seems to capture #3.

4) Economic growth is usually measured by increasing gross domestic product, although this is an inadequate indicator of human welfare, and;

Yep. A system which tries to calculate human welfare (and sustainability) into the GDP is actually the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI).

5) Economic growth has long been a primary policy goal of U.S. society and government because of the belief that it leads to an enhanced quality of life, and;

That's why most environemtal economists I know would never strictly equate increases in GDP to increases in well-being. This is probably best illustrated as examples such as the following: when a couple gets divorced, GDP increases because of the increase in money the lawyers get by handling the divorce; when a child breaks his/her leg, GDP increases because of money paid to the doctors, for the x-rays, for the emergency/office staff, and for the materials used; when another person gets AIDS, GDP increases because of the medications, care, and other needs; and I think you get the picture. None of these are examples of positive human welbeing.

6) Economic growth occurs in a finite and depletable biophysical context, and;

And?

7) Continuing non-renewable, resource-intensive economic growth is having unintended damaging consequences for ecosystems and human societies;

I like to call these 'externalities.' (the magic word)

Therefore, the United States Society for Ecological Economics takes the position that based on the above evidence:

1) There is a fundamental conflict between economic growth and ecosystem health (in such areas as biodiversity conservation, clean air and water, atmospheric stability), and;

OK, I think I might disagree with this just a little. By using the straw-man definition of economic growth, this turns into a tautology. 'Economic growth that uses ecosystem inputs but doesn't count them, uses ecosystem inputs but doesn't count them.' I don't particularly buy into the idea that sustainability means no economic growth, there are ways to make products more sustainably - such as getting companies to quit "planed obsolecence," reusing more products, using LESS of products (not every kid needs brand new toys - nor do they need EVERY toy they think they'd like), and focusing more on quality/craftsmanship than on cheap products (since over the lifetime you may pay more replacing units or parts than you would have spent on a model that was built to last). I feel that people also need to understand that there is no "away" and that just because they have removed it from their home does not mean it is gone.

2) There is a fundamental conflict between economic growth and the ecological services underpinning the human economy (for example, pollination, decomposition, climate regulation), and;

This is where my views start to depart from the ecol-econ view, I think. Such statements are without context and in my opinion lack prescriptive value. It is too easy to pick up on such statements and interpret them as "economic growth and environmental protection are incompatible. Therefore economic growth is bad." I think my above comments show where I stand on this idea...

3) Although technological progress and unregulated markets have had many positive effects they cannot be depended upon to fully reconcile the conflict between economic growth and the long-term ecological and social welfare of the U.S. and the world, and;

That's why environmental economists are concerned with measuring economic welfare in the context of human-environmental interaction. Technical progress cannot be held to be the only answer to the sustainability delema, but I do feel that its part should not be completely disregarded because this piece of the puzzle is what will help us to separate ourselves from the middle ages. Sure, not everyone will own a car - but there will be quick, reliable travel available. I do not believe that such things are impossible, just that we shouldn't hunker down in the sand and wait for them all to magically appear before changing our lifestyles.

4) A sustainable economy (that is, an economy with a relatively stable, mildly fluctuating product of population and per capita consumption) is a viable alternative to a growing economy and has become a more appropriate goal for the U.S. and other large, wealthy economies, and;

Sustainability does not have to mean economic stagnation. Ditto.

5) A long-run sustainable economy requires its establishment at a size small enough to avoid the breaching of ecological and economic capacity (especially during supply shocks such as droughts and energy shortages), efficient use of energy, materials and water, and an accelerated shift toward the use of renewable energy sources, and;

Hard to argue with. I think many environmental economists make similar arguments. Wait to go... it's not like the animals have been living this way for ... um... since time began... I find it hard to take sentiments like this seriously - I know that some people just need things spelt out, but Humans (Americans particularly) seem to act like they are above obeying simple ecosystem rules. We are nothing more than additional organisms on this planet and while God may have created us special and different, we cannot expect that we are not subject to carrying capacity, overshoot, shortage, and living within our own means. (One will take care to note that God told all the living things - not just man - to be fruitful and multiply...)

6) A sustainable economy supports economic development, a qualitative process in which human welfare is increased through strategic changes in the relative prominence of economic sectors and techniques. ;

Am I to read this as 'big business bad?" I get that feeling. And would it be so bad to say that big business is bad? Maybe the current state of big business... The race to the bottom line is nowhere near sustainable. Add to this the notion that small scale businesses tend to be more honest, nicer to their workers, and try to establish better products and services and that statement COULD sound like that... However, some big businesses try to be sustainable, lots of big businesses try to provide for the welbeing of their workers, and some small businesses don't play square with their customers. Blanket statements usually are not acurate.

7) While establishing a sustainable economy, it would be advisable for the U.S. to assist other nations in moving from the goal of economic growth to the goal of a sustainable economy, beginning with those nations currently enjoying adequate per capita consumption, and;

Umm...don't we get in trouble for things like this? Sorry I'll lean back to the left now. If we want to try and help other countries, maybe we could so stuff like forgive debts that have been paid several times over (but the countries are struggling with the interest of the loan), make it so that foreign countries do not need to open their borders to trade (since this kills their local economy and makes the people much worse off), and stop butting in and telling them what to do - because, let's face it, most of what we tell them to do is to a first-world countries best interest and has little or nothing to do with helpign that country. The road to hell is paved with "good intentions."

8) For many nations with widespread poverty, increasing per capita consumption though economic growth and often via more equitable distributions of wealth remains an appropriate goal. ;

So only poor nations should target economic growth? Doesn't that put them in the exact same place as we are now? Why advocate policies for poor countries that you argue caused the mess we're in in the first place? Doesn't seem to follow. Why not advocate policies for sustainable development and growth in ALL countries? We should butt out until we are perfect, then maybe we can try to "help" them along... Those who are not guilty of sin can toss the first stone.

In short, I think there are very few things on this list that I disagree with. Does that make me an ecological economist? Probably, but no more so than most ecological economists are environmental economists. I'm not saying there aren't differences in the ways we think about the economic-ecosystem interaction, but that's why we have discourse and why John and I welcome sites like Ecological Economics.