"Why do you hate ecological economics?"

The above is one of my FAQs. Answer:

I don't!

As evidence I submit my my environmental economics syllabus (hot off the presses). Note the textbook*. In the preface Goodstein states:

In terms of content, the book provides a rigorous and comprehensive presentation of the "standard analysis," ... However, Economics and the Environment also incorporates broader topics as separate chapters, notably, the ethical foundations of environmental economics, an introduction to ecological economics ...

The neat thing about the book is the comparison and contrast between neoclassical economics (i.e., standard or mainstream economics) and ecological economics. And, if you noticed, this material is on the course outline. So, I don't hate ecological economics, in fact, I think the approach is much-needed, I just don't agree with some of the conclusions (my dad always said don't say you hate someone/thing, just say that you don't like what they/it are/is doing right now).

More evidence: In the past I've pointed you towards the ecological econ blog and I'm hoping to have a good time with my class this semester. I've published papers in the Ecological Economics journal (and refereed a boat-load of papers for them):

The journal is concerned with extending and integrating the study and management of “nature's household” (ecology) and “humankind's household” (economics). This integration is necessary because conceptual and professional isolation have led to economic and environmental policies which are mutually destructive rather than reinforcing in the long term.

And take a look at the aims and objectives from the International Society of Ecological Economics:

The International Society for Ecological Economists (ISEE) facilitates understanding between economists and ecologists and the integration of their thinking into a trans-discipline aimed at developing a sustainable world. The following are some of the broad areas and particular questions of ongoing research and discussion in ecological economics:

• Modelling - How can we better integrate economic and ecological models to address management of local biodiversity, an ocean fishery, or the climate services of the global atmosphere?
• Equity - How does equity between individual people, nations, and over generations relate to sustainability?
• Indicators - Can we redirect development by augmenting traditional indicators such as GDP (gross domestic product) with biophysical indicators such as ecological footprint and social indicators such as the education of women?
• Limits - What properties of ecological and social systems act as "limits" to development and to what extent can human-produced capital substitute for natural capital?
• Trade & Development - How do current policies to promote development through capital mobility affect the control of natural resources, the ability of nations to manage environmental systems, and the distribution of well-being?
• Valuation - To what extent can we measure the value of non-market services provided by ecosystems and how can we promote public discourse on environmental and social values that significantly enriches economic measures?
• Policy Instruments - How should systems of tradable environmental permits and obligations, combined with environmental tax reform, be implemented?

Other than valuation and policy instruments (the two-headed beast of environmental economics), these are things that neoclassical economics either ignores or doesn't do too well. Ecological economics stepped into that void. To me, the most important contributions of ecological economics is the interdisciplinary sustainability research and, related, attempts to measure green GDP.

The things from the ecological economics literature that I don't agree with are (1) adding up of marginal willingness to pay values to arrive at a sum total willingness to pay that is greater than income and (2) the view that economic growth must be stopped, otherwise the environment will necessarily suffer. To me, these are the more extreme results from the ecological economics literature.

Even more evidence: I enjoy working with ecologists/biologists and, in a number of settings, have rarely** gotten into a fight (in school I played well with others).

*This is my first try with Goodstein. I've most recently used Jim Kahn's book in the past and like it but I also like to change books every now and then. I've primarily used Tietenberg, Field and Kahn in the past (all good undergraduate books) but am ready for another.

**The one fight that I've been involved in has been a painful doozy.