Friday, September 29, 2006
Ecological vs. Environmental Economists?
Ecological economists tend to group themselves around the principle of strong sustainability. They share the opinion that natural capital can ultimately not be substituted by manmade capital, but that it is essential for the long-term existence of the economy and that a large variety of natural resources should be preserved (precautionary principle). The neoclassical environmental economists tend to conclude that resource use today does not have to be limited because once the resources are scarce this will lead to technological innovations finding other ways of satisfying human needs (technological optimism).
Is there scope for mutual understanding or are the fundamental differences intractable?
Is there scope for mutual understanding or are the fundamental differences intractable?
Comments:
<< Home
Given that the vast majority of the world's ecosystems, fisheries, watersheds, etc. are in severe decline, this strikes me as an irrelevant issue. It would have been relevant a century ago, but today both disciplines need to be focused on restoration. Conservation is preferable, and sustainability is a noble dialogue, but let's face up the reality of the planet's condition. The only way we can even hold our own--given a finite planet with a growing human population--is by restoring. At this point, conservation and sustainability only slow down the rate of degradation and species loss. I would hope that few people find that sufficient.
Post a Comment
<< Home
