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