"Ecological economics is not necessarily pessimistic on economic growth. It merely points out that growth cannot be predicted by purely economic models from which the flow of energy and materials is excluded" (Martinez-Alier, President of The International Society for Ecological Economics , 1991)
Not all environmentalists believe in a zero-growth ideology. Ecological economists are aiming to redefine the ways that economy works, rather than to remove all economic stuffs.
Human should shift from using the 'flow' of natural capital, like renewables, instead of the 'stock', like non-renewables. Some suggest that the rate of (artifically) generatining the former should be made parallel to that of the latter,
i.e. how much fossil fuel you extract, how much solar energy you should capture. This idea hints at what extent we should be allowed to consume the capital stock.
However, if typical neoclassical economists or broadly, cornucopians, are told the above idea, they will ask why we don't more intensively deplete natural capital stock, regardless of how much is left, and put it into technological development to secure adequate supply of materials and energy, as Julian Simon and others did. They forget the fact that everything on Earth follow laws of thermodymics. Put it in simple terms, built capital generated from technological advances can never fully substitute natural capital. Can you produce any wind power facilities without using any natural capital? So we cannot assume high substitutability and use this invalid assumption as an excuse to extend the current patterns of consumption.
No comments:
Post a Comment