Ecological economics emerged in the 1970s, as a sub-field of mainstream economics, using some of the conventional tools of neoclassical economics, but trying to move away from it, not only regarding some of the theoretical choices, but also distancing from some of the ethical concerns of the mainstream (Holt and Spash, 2009). Even though there were precursors to ecological economics, in particular the work of Kenneth Boulding, Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen and Karl William Kapp, it is clear that the profound crisis of capitalism in the early 1970s, and the preoccupations with population growth, famine, and exhaustible resources, exacerbated by the oil shocks, were central for the sudden prominence of environmental concerns within the economics profession. Paul Ehrlich’s book, The Population Bomb, and the celebrated report on The Limits to Growth, published by a Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) team and the Club of Rome marked a significant cultural shift, and the beginning of the international concern with the ecological limitations of human activity.
The 1970s was also a period of significant macroeconomic turbulence, with the collapse of Bretton Woods, stagflation and a crisis that brought about the end so-called Keynesian Consensus. It was in this period of crisis of Keynesian economics that an heterodox alternative to the mainstream was developed. In part for that reason, Ecological Economics is seen as being critical, and part of the broader heterodox tradition. But their are good reasons to be skeptical about this view.
Read rest here.
(tried to comment on Substack, but unable to).
ReplyDeleteI think the biggest problem for degrowth/steady-state advocates of ecological economics is the lack of political economy critique. Capitalism cannot work without expanding profits, so any type of "management approach" of the ecological problem under capitalism is doomed to fail. My intuition is that any government intervention that is strong enough to adjust consumption to ecologically sustainable levels will kill capitalism, and any intervention that is weak enough to not kill capitalism is not ecologically sustainable. The scale of management of the ecological challenge would require fundamental change in the functioning of State, corporations and society that only some kind of "ecological socialism" (no idea how it would work) would be able to manage this transition.
The car industry is an example: it is obviously an absurdly inefficient way to transport 1 to 2 human beings (~70kg each) in a vehicle that weights on average one ton (closer to 1.5 in the US). Going for electric cars, whose energy density of batteries is 10~15x less than fossil fuels. Substituting a fleet of 1 bi vehicles, plus renewable power plants, plus expansion of the grid, is an much more resource intensive plan than substitute this industry for a smart public /collective transport network, and adapting our cities to this reality. The decisions made in any country regarding this industry are clearly insufficient, but the sufficient ones are impossible to be made in the current political and economical system.
Oi Caio, eu comparto parte de sua preocupação com os problemas gerados pelo capitalismo, não só no que diz respeito ao meio ambiente. A parte que me preocupa de alguns ambientalistas radicais é de um lado o anti-humanismo (pouca preocupação com as pessoas mesmo; vão fazer o quê com a turma que tá sobrando?), e uma certa postura anti-ciência. Por exemplo, muitos são abertamente contra qq tipo de engenharia genética, até mesmo pra produzir variantes resistentes ao aquecimento global. Isso sem dizer nada sobre o fato de gente como o Tim Jackson, se dá ao luxo de dizer que tudo se resolve com mais meditação e menos consumo, enquanto certamente está tomando capuccino e escrevendo no seu computador comfortavelmente em um país avançado. Fica difícil levar a sério.
ReplyDelete