A book review report to be submitted for one of the courses I am taking this semester (the course name is Philosophical Issues in Geography, the content is interesting, but the teaching style is...well...)
Book Name: Greenhouse Economics: Value and Ethics
Publisher: Routledge, London
Author: Cli_ve Sp_ash
Year: 2002
Sp_ash’s book offers insightful counterarguments to neoclassical economics with reference in particular to enhanced Greenhouse Effect. Despite titled as ‘Greenhouse economics’ the book is developed as a critical review of mainstream environmental economists’ misunderstandings of the issue. Intensive discussion on the misplaced role of economics as well as science in general is built upon a postmodernist perspective as a response to their methodological weaknesses in addressing the nature of the problem which is characterized by evidently high uncertainties, complexities and indeterminacy. It calls for a theoretically different approach that removes the consequential and utilitarian preoccupation of standard economics, and accommodates pluralist values and admits partial ignorance.
Normal science and mainstream economics, according to Sp_ash, restrict their analysis and policy recommendations to a claim of truth-seeking and neutrality. This
‘golden rule’, however, limits the development of good policy if applying to the public sphere. His criticisms come with a distinction between weak and strong uncertainty, which the former is meant to acknowledge predictable risks with unknown probabilities while the latter denies any predictability as with the climate change. Justified by a deterministic worldview, the linear and predictable trajectory of climate change then form the basis of cost-benefit analysis that formulates the money balance in case of catastrophic events. An objective fact is taken as given and awaiting to be discovered in forms like the dollar value of the damages following a rise in global temperature, which can then inform what should and should not be done to assure sustainability. However, Sp_ash dismisses such faith as ‘hard’ guidance for policymaking given the strong uncertainty, irreversibility and indeterminacy of climatic catastrophes that make experimental speculative numbers meaningless in developing proper responses to truly unpredictable events. The characterisation of future states via ‘scientifically sound’ cause-effect relationship would excessively simplify system behaviours in action which often operate in non-linear patterns, like human interaction.
Another problem that follows is the treatment of ethical dimensions. Reliance on science throughout the last century appears to promote the merits of a value-free position in the realization of adaptive responses. Sp_ash is sceptical to such a relegation of moral judgement especially in the high-profile debates of global warming. Relocation of inhabitants in low-lying areas and the international distribution of mitigation costs, for instance, inevitably involve justice issues and are beyond the economic dogma of utility maximization defined exclusively by neoclassical criteria. Sp_ash contends that “many economists claim that economic values and scientific research are separable from the moral and ethical dimensions of the problem they study. However, whether discounting or valuing damages, ethical and distributional issues are central to discussing the enhanced Greenhouse Effect (p.192)”. The utilitarianism well established in mainstream economics that serves well in dealing with private goods has entirely missed the point as far as the public good nature of the environment, as exemplified by the case of global warming, is concerned.
The need of a transition from normal science to post normal science is stressed by Sp_ash, following Funtowicz and Ravetz (1993, 1994), who are inspired by a specific postmodernist standpoint. Scientists and economists attempt to search for an objective truth for achieving a set of definitive solutions to the problem and restrict the criteria to their initial worldview. Under a methodological individualism they construct disciplinary boundary based on a set of unrealistic assumptions isolated from the human world and at the same time ignore evidence that is incompatible to their recognized empirical knowledge. Multiple values and deontological positions are excluded from positive economics thus cutting off the connection between science and society. Blatantly contradictory and misleading messages are then created under this narrow definition of global warming issues and its impacts, as demonstrated in the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change strongly criticized by Sp_ash in another article (Sp_ash, 2007).
Criticisms to Sp_ash’s position can be drawn from pragmatic needs. Economists’ simplification can make policy actions manageable and scientific ‘evidence’ can also minimize controversy. Admission of partial ignorance and incorporation of multiple values require a fundamental change in institutional behaviours as acknowledged by Sp_ash. Despite theoretically correct, practitioners may find it impotent to commit such a big move and be sceptical to withdrawing from vested interests, and this creates questions about the extent that the Sp_ash’s recommendations can genuinely make a difference in practice. He may also be challenged as being over-optimistic to an enhanced role of the public when he recommended a deliberative, discursive approach rather an expert-led one. Emphasis of subjective moral imperatives will leave rooms for policy manipulation too. Further, existing institutions tend to have a resistance to the unspecified, or sometimes ambiguous, roadmap, so do the general public in some circumstances.
Nevertheless, the major contribution of this book is in distinguishing the role of objectivity and subjectivity with respect to enhanced Greenhouse Effect issues, while leaving policy recommendations open (in fact, this must be open based on the contexts). Critics should not ignore the fact that the exclusive focus on objectivity is part of the problem per se. It not only relegates ethical dimensions but also puts too much faith to future technologies. If being objective is meant to rely more on science, then one cannot eliminate surprise events associated with the environment as well as human society. “Future technologies cannot be predicted and therefore all the worries of environmentalists may be solved by scientists and engineers. The very same analysts fail to see the logic of their argument. If the future is unpredictable we must plan for the unexpected” (p.279).
Acknowledging subjective values is meant to enhance the capacities of human to cope with strong uncertainties by extending the peer review community to lay people and stakeholders, and the concerned in other disciplines like social psychology and political science. This helps identify unknowns and develop novel solutions, and most importantly, assure equity in the distribution of costs and benefits associated with surprise events, such as relocation of coastal inhabitants due to sudden sea level rise. The issues about who gain and who lose are in fact central to the global warming discourse. They are however more an art than a science that objective judgement always fails to address if not intensifies the problem by, as some economists did, suggesting that a potential (hypothetical) compensation would justify ‘rational’ decisions like transferring chemical wastes to poor countries for lower costs in accordance with the Pareto optimality principle. Sp_ash stresses that objective information and approaches are to some extent ‘subjectively’ created. In his book, the enhanced Greenhouse Effect is taken to indicate the weaknesses of holding such an ‘objective’ position in tackling contemporary complex problems. Criticising on pragmatic issues does not reduce the credibility of his arguments but just repeat the narrowly defined economic doctrines. In fact, part of the current problem actually arises from the intentional avoidance of these complex issues.
To conclude, this book is worth reading in depth. In general it is suitable for readers who have basic knowledge in economics and are interested in a pluralistic approach. It broadens the understanding of the enhanced Greenhouse Effect by critically reviewing the interpretations of mainstream economics in particular. It reminds economists and those who accept their approaches that the issue can never be adequately understood within their disciplinary confines. Sp_ash raises suspicion over the prevalent neoclassicism and meaningfully approaches the issue following the postmodernist trend, while leaving more difficult (but unavoidable) questions to practitioners, including to himself.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Sunday, March 9, 2008
五年
剛剛出席了一個大學同學的婚宴，他是我的roomate，跟我一樣都叫ALEX，一起住了三年，他算我在大學裡的最好朋友了，看著他步入人生一個新階段，驚覺原來我們畢業已經五年了
跟很多人一樣，我的大學生活都是十分糜爛 (但比起他我還不算什麼，起碼我還會溫習課本)，常常三五成群，以酒為伴，不到凌晨2、3時不睡，又參與很多校內的活動，不過統統都是沒正經的，例如新生迎新營，三年級的時候便迷上online game，結果成績大倒退。當然，我當時也沒有什麼事業目標可言，只期望畢業後可以找份普通的工作就算了 – 事實上連打算找什麼工作也不太清楚。畢業那年(2003)正值SARS，百業蕭條，往後一年事業都十分不如意，好不容易捱到了2004年，心底裡漸漸有些念頭湧現，告訴自己不應再從事商業工作，而應重新拾回自己於下了多年的興趣 ，那就是環保。
入大學前我一度考慮選修環境科學，但最後因前途考量而放棄了，五年後即2004年，我決定擺心一橫，辭掉了只做了五個月的merchandiser的工作，找了一份環保工作，就是在一個政府機構內當Project Coordinator，籌辦環保教育活動，而代價是賠了HK$3000多元給另一個政府部門，原因是我工作了兩天就辭工。由於工作比較清閒，我有很多時間自行閱讀有關這個範疇的Readings，特別是有關environmental economics的，同時間我亦決定報讀環境管理學碩士，希望借此學更多有關知識，及看看自己是否適合再讀上去，而在課程開始不久，即2006年初，我就轉到港大教育學院當研究助理，目的亦是希望看看自己的research potential，避免走錯路，另外面也是因為對政府部門的官僚制度感到失望，想早日離開。
兩年又這樣過去了，我覺得研究這條路是十分適合自己，於是決定報讀MPhil，為自己再讀PhD鋪好路。令我意外的是，在我開始MPhil不到半年，我就獲得了一個全額獎學金到澳洲讀PhD，而且還是跟隨一位我心儀已久的教授工作，機會難得，我當然不作他想。
如此，這五年自我尋找的過程很快就過去了，我終於如願以償，可以到外國重新開始自己的事業和生活，我人生的另一個階段快要開始了，是十分令人興奮的，然而，這麼一去的代價甚大，想起也十分擔憂，但出國讀書是事在必行，人沒有理想就如行屍走肉，這種人我見多了，作為財務學畢業生，我反而不希望什麼也跟錢掛勾，每天西裝筆直在中環上班就叫人生? 別開玩笑，我不要這樣
物質生活對我不太重要，離開香港這個物質社會可以讓我靜下來做研究。但我最不願意見到的是為了理想放棄我身邊的人，艱苦的日子一齊渡過，我光榮自豪的一刻也要一起分享。
大學畢業是人生一個新階段，現在五年後又是另一個，當年中文大學逸夫書院國懋樓房號H122裡的兩個ALEX，今天一個結了婚，走進人生新的關口，而另一個則將要踏上陌生的土地，開始新事業。無法想像再五年後大家的樣子會變得如何(更老還是更胖?!)，但期望大家都能找到自己理想的天空。
跟很多人一樣，我的大學生活都是十分糜爛 (但比起他我還不算什麼，起碼我還會溫習課本)，常常三五成群，以酒為伴，不到凌晨2、3時不睡，又參與很多校內的活動，不過統統都是沒正經的，例如新生迎新營，三年級的時候便迷上online game，結果成績大倒退。當然，我當時也沒有什麼事業目標可言，只期望畢業後可以找份普通的工作就算了 – 事實上連打算找什麼工作也不太清楚。畢業那年(2003)正值SARS，百業蕭條，往後一年事業都十分不如意，好不容易捱到了2004年，心底裡漸漸有些念頭湧現，告訴自己不應再從事商業工作，而應重新拾回自己於下了多年的興趣 ，那就是環保。
入大學前我一度考慮選修環境科學，但最後因前途考量而放棄了，五年後即2004年，我決定擺心一橫，辭掉了只做了五個月的merchandiser的工作，找了一份環保工作，就是在一個政府機構內當Project Coordinator，籌辦環保教育活動，而代價是賠了HK$3000多元給另一個政府部門，原因是我工作了兩天就辭工。由於工作比較清閒，我有很多時間自行閱讀有關這個範疇的Readings，特別是有關environmental economics的，同時間我亦決定報讀環境管理學碩士，希望借此學更多有關知識，及看看自己是否適合再讀上去，而在課程開始不久，即2006年初，我就轉到港大教育學院當研究助理，目的亦是希望看看自己的research potential，避免走錯路，另外面也是因為對政府部門的官僚制度感到失望，想早日離開。
兩年又這樣過去了，我覺得研究這條路是十分適合自己，於是決定報讀MPhil，為自己再讀PhD鋪好路。令我意外的是，在我開始MPhil不到半年，我就獲得了一個全額獎學金到澳洲讀PhD，而且還是跟隨一位我心儀已久的教授工作，機會難得，我當然不作他想。
如此，這五年自我尋找的過程很快就過去了，我終於如願以償，可以到外國重新開始自己的事業和生活，我人生的另一個階段快要開始了，是十分令人興奮的，然而，這麼一去的代價甚大，想起也十分擔憂，但出國讀書是事在必行，人沒有理想就如行屍走肉，這種人我見多了，作為財務學畢業生，我反而不希望什麼也跟錢掛勾，每天西裝筆直在中環上班就叫人生? 別開玩笑，我不要這樣
物質生活對我不太重要，離開香港這個物質社會可以讓我靜下來做研究。但我最不願意見到的是為了理想放棄我身邊的人，艱苦的日子一齊渡過，我光榮自豪的一刻也要一起分享。
大學畢業是人生一個新階段，現在五年後又是另一個，當年中文大學逸夫書院國懋樓房號H122裡的兩個ALEX，今天一個結了婚，走進人生新的關口，而另一個則將要踏上陌生的土地，開始新事業。無法想像再五年後大家的樣子會變得如何(更老還是更胖?!)，但期望大家都能找到自己理想的天空。
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
From science to philosophy (with Chinese)
Some thoughts about the development of the discipline I am engaging in. In short, the change in the focus is driven by a recognition that science is not the key to achieving SD although it does have a role to play. We have to look at value, the ultimate source of the problems.
When the science of sustainability emerged in 70s, it was more closely associated with physical scientific perspectives than social or philosophical ones. Earlier researchers in ecological economics (EE) took part in this endeavour by re-connecting ecology and economics and based their works on the biophysical reality. They assessed the sustain-ability of our economy by showing people the failure of the current economic model in accounting for the earth’s operation. They began with energy and material flow analysis, and used this to show the ridiculousness of neoclassical economics. In a series of academic debates, mainstream economic assumptions, like indefinite supply of natural resources and reversible process of resource use, were criticized as misrepresenting the real world in which the scale of economy is subject to biophysical constraints.
Those with a greater emphasis on social or philosophical sides form a new school of thought. They work on this newer perspective, which is still in its infancy, by addressing what value is in subjective terms rather than objective ones. They address the meaning of environmental value based on various non-science viewpoints, like psychology, political science and applied philosophy, which the earlier researchers in EE did not pay as much attention as they do. Some of the earlier researchers who have an ecology or economics background insisted on incorporating the 'truth' of the Earth into policymaking through adopting approaches like energy theory of value or ecological tariffs. It was (and still is) suggested that the best way to build a sustainable path is to find out the existing, objective ‘truth’ and show it to all people, they will then become aware of the problems and do something good. Big changes in policy and human behaviours are thus a viewed as a function of an objectivity. What we need to do is developing right science and getting rid of the wrong one, according to this view.
A key question is raised by the ‘new generation’ in EE: do human behaviours (and hence policy) really listen to objective facts? Is the relationship strong enough so that we can happily rest our future on science? Psychologists may say ‘No’. Lots of psychological researches have showed that it is people’s perception over the facts in question that determines human behaviours rather than the facts per se. For example, an American may be convinced by Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” but is unwilling to pay any eco-tax because s/he hates this politician and the dirty political game he is playing.
The new wave starts with a more social scientific perspective. They seek to explore the potentials of understanding human perceptions (or the economics's wrong assumption of it) and behaviours which have no necessary linkage with an objective 'truth'. They research on the subjectivity of environmental value, which is recognized as variable, dynamic and multidimentional. There is no single ‘truth’, but changing contexts depending on spatial and temporal variations. Further, individuals are assumed to be capable of acting rationally and reacting ‘correctly’ to scientific evidence (neoclassical economists hold a view similar to this, i.e. defining utility-motivated actions as rational while excluding ethics). But this finds little support from social psychologists, like Icek Ajzen’s theory of planned behaviours which puts individual’s attitude, subjective norms and perceived behaviour control as the key determinants. Attitude may affect the extent to which people trust an institution and accept a particular piece of scientific ‘fact’ regarding global warming funded by, for instance, Exxon, a big oil company. Norms may also implicitly influence how individuals define what is ‘rational’, so fengshui (風水)is a rational and legitimate belief in Chinese societies and fengshui forest can be most effectively protected by cultural reasons rather than ecological ones. The new comers argue that wrong policy comes from a wrong value model, and wrong science is in turn more like an outcome of both these two, so one has make sure the value system is on the right track for informing science development. While science is necessary, it is subjective value that precludes as well as informs a big move.
生態經濟學是以可持續發展為目標的一門學問，其近30年的發展提示了對環境問題的另一個看法 (當然這裡包含了其他領域的貢獻)。轉變的重點是在於認識到客觀科學不是解決問題關鍵，雖然它仍的確扮演一個角色，我們要著眼於人類對『價值』的定義 - 問題的最終來源。 當可持續性這門學問出現在70年代，它主要從自然科學的角度出發多於社會或哲學的。在生態經濟學的範疇裡，早期旳研究人員嘗試建基於生物/物理的現實，來重新連接生態學和經濟學兩門有著很多共通點的學科。他們透過指出，由於過份簡化及脫離事實，現行經濟模式是無法反映地球的實際運作情況，來評估現行經濟模型的環境可持續性。他們從能量和物質流分析開始，揭示出新古典經濟學的可笑。在一系列的學術爭論中，新古典經濟學的假設，如天然資源的無限供應和資源使用過程的可回逆性等等，被批評為歪曲了現實世界裡經濟規模受生物物理限制這一事實。 當中有部份人比較強調社會或哲學觀點，遂形一個新的學派分支。他們做這方面的工作以較新的角度來看 – 不過目前仍然處於起步階段，他們強調環境價值是由主觀概念，而非客觀。他們以各種非科學的觀點，如心理學，政治學和應用哲學，來解釋和釐清環境價值的定義，而這些觀點在以前是被忽略了的。早期的生態經濟學者很多有生態學或經濟學背景，他們堅持把有關環境的科學'真理'放做政策制定的最主要考慮，並提出解決途徑例如能量價值理論或生態關稅。這曾被認為是（其實現在仍然是）最好的方法:要建設一個可持續發展的道路，就是要摸清現有的、客觀的科學'真理' (例如全球氣溫上升)，並將之展示世人，於是人們就會自然地為了解決這個問題而作出正面回應。政策和人類的行為大改變於是被看成建基於某種科學客觀性。根據這一觀點，我們需要做的是發展正確的科學和擺脫錯誤的那些。 生態經濟學的'新一代'提出了一個關鍵問題：人類行為（和政策）是否真的受眼前客觀事實所影響？這個關係是否真的那麼明顯，而使到我們能夠安心地把人類的將來寄託於科學？心理學家可能會說'不' 。大量的心理學研究表明，是人們對某個事實的主觀的價值態度決定著人的行為，而非客觀事實本身。舉例來說，一個美國人可能會信服戈爾的"Inconvenient Truth" ，但同時因為他/她不喜歡這位政治家和骯髒的政治遊戲，而不願意支付任何生態稅。
新一代生態經濟學家先從社會科學的角度來看。他們尋求對人類認知和行為的了解（或經濟學對此的錯誤假設），並認這些與客觀的'真理'沒有必然的聯繫。他們研究的環境價值的主觀性，及其可變性、互動性和多維性。這裡不存在單一的'真理'，而只有取決於空間和時間因素的不斷變化。此外，人類往往被假定為有能力作出理性行為和正確地對科學證據作出回應（新古典主義經濟學家持類似觀點，即認為純基於利益的行為是理性，而排除道德）。但這種認定對沒有得到社會心理學的實證支持，像Icek Ajzen的計劃行為理論 - 把個人的信念，主觀社會規範和自覺行為控制為決定人類行為因素。個人信念可能會影響到人們有多信任的某個制度或機構，並有多少接受某項科學證據 ，例如由埃克森公司贊助的關於全球變暖的科學研究 (誰會信石油公司提出的『證據』?)。社會規範也可暗地裡影響個人如何界定什麼是'合理' ，是故在中國人社會風水被認為是一種理性和合理的信仰，因此保護風水林最有效的方法是建基於文化方面，而多於生態科學的。新一代生態經濟學家認為錯誤的政策來自於一個錯誤的價值系統，是錯誤的科學的又是二者的結果，所以當前的任務是要確保價值系統沒有走歪，從而提示正面的科學發展。當然科學是重要的，但最終卻是主觀價值阻礙而又能夠推動大改變。
When the science of sustainability emerged in 70s, it was more closely associated with physical scientific perspectives than social or philosophical ones. Earlier researchers in ecological economics (EE) took part in this endeavour by re-connecting ecology and economics and based their works on the biophysical reality. They assessed the sustain-ability of our economy by showing people the failure of the current economic model in accounting for the earth’s operation. They began with energy and material flow analysis, and used this to show the ridiculousness of neoclassical economics. In a series of academic debates, mainstream economic assumptions, like indefinite supply of natural resources and reversible process of resource use, were criticized as misrepresenting the real world in which the scale of economy is subject to biophysical constraints.
Those with a greater emphasis on social or philosophical sides form a new school of thought. They work on this newer perspective, which is still in its infancy, by addressing what value is in subjective terms rather than objective ones. They address the meaning of environmental value based on various non-science viewpoints, like psychology, political science and applied philosophy, which the earlier researchers in EE did not pay as much attention as they do. Some of the earlier researchers who have an ecology or economics background insisted on incorporating the 'truth' of the Earth into policymaking through adopting approaches like energy theory of value or ecological tariffs. It was (and still is) suggested that the best way to build a sustainable path is to find out the existing, objective ‘truth’ and show it to all people, they will then become aware of the problems and do something good. Big changes in policy and human behaviours are thus a viewed as a function of an objectivity. What we need to do is developing right science and getting rid of the wrong one, according to this view.
A key question is raised by the ‘new generation’ in EE: do human behaviours (and hence policy) really listen to objective facts? Is the relationship strong enough so that we can happily rest our future on science? Psychologists may say ‘No’. Lots of psychological researches have showed that it is people’s perception over the facts in question that determines human behaviours rather than the facts per se. For example, an American may be convinced by Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” but is unwilling to pay any eco-tax because s/he hates this politician and the dirty political game he is playing.
The new wave starts with a more social scientific perspective. They seek to explore the potentials of understanding human perceptions (or the economics's wrong assumption of it) and behaviours which have no necessary linkage with an objective 'truth'. They research on the subjectivity of environmental value, which is recognized as variable, dynamic and multidimentional. There is no single ‘truth’, but changing contexts depending on spatial and temporal variations. Further, individuals are assumed to be capable of acting rationally and reacting ‘correctly’ to scientific evidence (neoclassical economists hold a view similar to this, i.e. defining utility-motivated actions as rational while excluding ethics). But this finds little support from social psychologists, like Icek Ajzen’s theory of planned behaviours which puts individual’s attitude, subjective norms and perceived behaviour control as the key determinants. Attitude may affect the extent to which people trust an institution and accept a particular piece of scientific ‘fact’ regarding global warming funded by, for instance, Exxon, a big oil company. Norms may also implicitly influence how individuals define what is ‘rational’, so fengshui (風水)is a rational and legitimate belief in Chinese societies and fengshui forest can be most effectively protected by cultural reasons rather than ecological ones. The new comers argue that wrong policy comes from a wrong value model, and wrong science is in turn more like an outcome of both these two, so one has make sure the value system is on the right track for informing science development. While science is necessary, it is subjective value that precludes as well as informs a big move.
生態經濟學是以可持續發展為目標的一門學問，其近30年的發展提示了對環境問題的另一個看法 (當然這裡包含了其他領域的貢獻)。轉變的重點是在於認識到客觀科學不是解決問題關鍵，雖然它仍的確扮演一個角色，我們要著眼於人類對『價值』的定義 - 問題的最終來源。 當可持續性這門學問出現在70年代，它主要從自然科學的角度出發多於社會或哲學的。在生態經濟學的範疇裡，早期旳研究人員嘗試建基於生物/物理的現實，來重新連接生態學和經濟學兩門有著很多共通點的學科。他們透過指出，由於過份簡化及脫離事實，現行經濟模式是無法反映地球的實際運作情況，來評估現行經濟模型的環境可持續性。他們從能量和物質流分析開始，揭示出新古典經濟學的可笑。在一系列的學術爭論中，新古典經濟學的假設，如天然資源的無限供應和資源使用過程的可回逆性等等，被批評為歪曲了現實世界裡經濟規模受生物物理限制這一事實。 當中有部份人比較強調社會或哲學觀點，遂形一個新的學派分支。他們做這方面的工作以較新的角度來看 – 不過目前仍然處於起步階段，他們強調環境價值是由主觀概念，而非客觀。他們以各種非科學的觀點，如心理學，政治學和應用哲學，來解釋和釐清環境價值的定義，而這些觀點在以前是被忽略了的。早期的生態經濟學者很多有生態學或經濟學背景，他們堅持把有關環境的科學'真理'放做政策制定的最主要考慮，並提出解決途徑例如能量價值理論或生態關稅。這曾被認為是（其實現在仍然是）最好的方法:要建設一個可持續發展的道路，就是要摸清現有的、客觀的科學'真理' (例如全球氣溫上升)，並將之展示世人，於是人們就會自然地為了解決這個問題而作出正面回應。政策和人類的行為大改變於是被看成建基於某種科學客觀性。根據這一觀點，我們需要做的是發展正確的科學和擺脫錯誤的那些。 生態經濟學的'新一代'提出了一個關鍵問題：人類行為（和政策）是否真的受眼前客觀事實所影響？這個關係是否真的那麼明顯，而使到我們能夠安心地把人類的將來寄託於科學？心理學家可能會說'不' 。大量的心理學研究表明，是人們對某個事實的主觀的價值態度決定著人的行為，而非客觀事實本身。舉例來說，一個美國人可能會信服戈爾的"Inconvenient Truth" ，但同時因為他/她不喜歡這位政治家和骯髒的政治遊戲，而不願意支付任何生態稅。
新一代生態經濟學家先從社會科學的角度來看。他們尋求對人類認知和行為的了解（或經濟學對此的錯誤假設），並認這些與客觀的'真理'沒有必然的聯繫。他們研究的環境價值的主觀性，及其可變性、互動性和多維性。這裡不存在單一的'真理'，而只有取決於空間和時間因素的不斷變化。此外，人類往往被假定為有能力作出理性行為和正確地對科學證據作出回應（新古典主義經濟學家持類似觀點，即認為純基於利益的行為是理性，而排除道德）。但這種認定對沒有得到社會心理學的實證支持，像Icek Ajzen的計劃行為理論 - 把個人的信念，主觀社會規範和自覺行為控制為決定人類行為因素。個人信念可能會影響到人們有多信任的某個制度或機構，並有多少接受某項科學證據 ，例如由埃克森公司贊助的關於全球變暖的科學研究 (誰會信石油公司提出的『證據』?)。社會規範也可暗地裡影響個人如何界定什麼是'合理' ，是故在中國人社會風水被認為是一種理性和合理的信仰，因此保護風水林最有效的方法是建基於文化方面，而多於生態科學的。新一代生態經濟學家認為錯誤的政策來自於一個錯誤的價值系統，是錯誤的科學的又是二者的結果，所以當前的任務是要確保價值系統沒有走歪，從而提示正面的科學發展。當然科學是重要的，但最終卻是主觀價值阻礙而又能夠推動大改變。
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Preparing for my PhD (2)
Talked to my MPhil supervisor this Monday. He was not quite happy about my decision to leave earlier. No doubt this is my fault to leave without completing the degree, so I have nothing to defend. But I know it is a right decision from my point of view, since I think I won't be able to get such an attractive scholarship even I have a MPhil degree and a few publications. CSIRO offers me a package which covers internationship student fee plus stipend (> HK$300,000 p.a., for three years), not to mention the opportunity to work with two renowned scholars in my field. My supervisor suggested that I can apply for Edward Youde Scholarship offered by HK government after MPhil. But I am not confident about this since I got a IIB honour degree and it is apparently uncompetitive.
To my surprise, he suggested me to leave as soon as possible. It is because if I hold the current studentship until August, the department may lose one research studentship place in the coming years. This is due to an unreasonable policy of the university that the department may be penalized if its research student withdraws from the programme (and the student will be ridiculously counted as 'failed'). My department (and my supersior) don't want to get penalized, so they asked me to leave asap if I really decide to go Australia. I was not quite happy about this. My reply was that I need to get a written confirmation from the ANU before making a final decision, and not now.
Maybe he feels like being betrayed. At the same time I also feel uncomfortable. But I will insist on making this hard decision if time goes back, although it ruins our mutual trust.
Seems that I have to give up so many things for this PhD and an uncertain future.
Friday, February 29, 2008
My first publication
My first publication:
Article title: Merging electricity and environment politics of Hong Kong: identifying the barriers from the ways that sustainability is defined
Journal title: Energy Policy
DOI link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.01.006
Article title: Merging electricity and environment politics of Hong Kong: identifying the barriers from the ways that sustainability is defined
Journal title: Energy Policy
DOI link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.01.006
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Preparing for my PhD (1)
Good news, I have another big name to be my co-supervisor. Dr Sp_ash directly talked to him - Prof J. Dry_zek in ANU, one of the top environmental political scientists and got his agreement several days after we met.
Now I am thinking about my PhD project. I have a plan but it seems to be too big for a PhD project. I raise my question about resource contraints and feasibility in an email to Dr Sp_ash. He suggests me to start with searching for a problem (or an issue) that is interesting and important, then methodology and techniques, and then availability of resource and logistics. He is right, it is far more important to look at the problem/issue first because it determines the nature of the research, which in turn points to what approach you should and can use. Any research has to be contrained by resources available but you should not let it determine your research questions.
Now I am thinking about my PhD project. I have a plan but it seems to be too big for a PhD project. I raise my question about resource contraints and feasibility in an email to Dr Sp_ash. He suggests me to start with searching for a problem (or an issue) that is interesting and important, then methodology and techniques, and then availability of resource and logistics. He is right, it is far more important to look at the problem/issue first because it determines the nature of the research, which in turn points to what approach you should and can use. Any research has to be contrained by resources available but you should not let it determine your research questions.
Friday, February 8, 2008
My trip to Australia
These three days I am in Canberra, Australia for visiting CSIRO, where I may have a chance to do PhD with a renowned professor, Dr Sp-ash.
On the first day I met him for the first time. We had dinner (or tea?) in a pub and got a long chat. We talked about some academic stuffs, what kind of project I can/want to do, and a little on the procedure. He is friendly, knows a lot about this field and is insightful. I really enjoy talking with him. After this he drove me around to have a quick look on Canberra.
On the next day we went to the CSIRO office where I may work later. I chatted with his current PhD student about the living here. Then, he took me, with his Post-doctoral fellow, to a restaurant to have a dinner. Other than meat and dissert we had beer, wine and coffee after finishing all. The dissert was pretty good! (it is something like French燉蛋). We talked a lots of issues, from democracy of different countries to local culture....but in most cases I could only listen because sometimes I found difficulties to understand what they are talking about, I could just say 'yea', 'oh'. My speaking is just ok, at least they could understand although I often got some grammatical mistakes.
On the third day I first went back to the office and talked to the personnel officer about the visa issues. It sounds uneasy to get a PR until I graduate. Then I had a practice for my presentation to get myself familiar with the situation. At about 11am the Post-doc took me to the new Parliament building. I looked around and knew more about the political history of Australia. I then presented in the afternoon with 7-8 audience. I talked about my previous MSc research project and the current one. There were some follow-up questions from the front but I didn't handle them very well. Overall I would say I can do it better. The final activity was chatting with the professor in a pub. We talked more on my plan for the PhD and some other academic stuffs. Again it's a nice chat. Talking to people with similar intellectual mind with me is always a good experience.
Canberra is quiet but it is good for doing research because you can make your mind clearer, though some people may find it boring. Goods are 2-3 times more expensive than HK. Australia accent is ...ok but a little different. I am just worring about the housing and transport here - I don't even have a driving licence.
Very likely that I will to come to Canberra for the 3-year PhD programme later this year. But I know it will definitely be a big challenge for me, not for the life here but the difficulty in doing the project. It's not hard for me to deal with theoretical issues, but it will be painful to implement survey like what I am doing now. And it will get more problems as I will probably do the survey in China and Australia. Hopefully I can get some fundings to hire someone to do the time-consuming jobs. Another issue is that I have seperate with my GF for 3 years. It's hard, I don't know how my life will be.
On the first day I met him for the first time. We had dinner (or tea?) in a pub and got a long chat. We talked about some academic stuffs, what kind of project I can/want to do, and a little on the procedure. He is friendly, knows a lot about this field and is insightful. I really enjoy talking with him. After this he drove me around to have a quick look on Canberra.
On the next day we went to the CSIRO office where I may work later. I chatted with his current PhD student about the living here. Then, he took me, with his Post-doctoral fellow, to a restaurant to have a dinner. Other than meat and dissert we had beer, wine and coffee after finishing all. The dissert was pretty good! (it is something like French燉蛋). We talked a lots of issues, from democracy of different countries to local culture....but in most cases I could only listen because sometimes I found difficulties to understand what they are talking about, I could just say 'yea', 'oh'. My speaking is just ok, at least they could understand although I often got some grammatical mistakes.
On the third day I first went back to the office and talked to the personnel officer about the visa issues. It sounds uneasy to get a PR until I graduate. Then I had a practice for my presentation to get myself familiar with the situation. At about 11am the Post-doc took me to the new Parliament building. I looked around and knew more about the political history of Australia. I then presented in the afternoon with 7-8 audience. I talked about my previous MSc research project and the current one. There were some follow-up questions from the front but I didn't handle them very well. Overall I would say I can do it better. The final activity was chatting with the professor in a pub. We talked more on my plan for the PhD and some other academic stuffs. Again it's a nice chat. Talking to people with similar intellectual mind with me is always a good experience.
Canberra is quiet but it is good for doing research because you can make your mind clearer, though some people may find it boring. Goods are 2-3 times more expensive than HK. Australia accent is ...ok but a little different. I am just worring about the housing and transport here - I don't even have a driving licence.
Very likely that I will to come to Canberra for the 3-year PhD programme later this year. But I know it will definitely be a big challenge for me, not for the life here but the difficulty in doing the project. It's not hard for me to deal with theoretical issues, but it will be painful to implement survey like what I am doing now. And it will get more problems as I will probably do the survey in China and Australia. Hopefully I can get some fundings to hire someone to do the time-consuming jobs. Another issue is that I have seperate with my GF for 3 years. It's hard, I don't know how my life will be.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Environmental ethics
Some environmental philosophers and ecological economists considered the reductionish approach of neoclassical economics as an ethic by itself in constrast to deontological understanding of the nature of some people in the society. Values in economic sense is narrowly defined in an atomistic, individual-driven way. But the new wave of social-environmental movement is built on rights-based approach, based either on an environmental-consequentialist mentality or absolute rights of non-human and advocating collective values.
Now there is a trend towards deontological values as an ethical basis of sustainable development. To this end, Funtowicz & Ravetz (1993) suggested that we are in the age of 'post-normal' science. Provided that the environment is a public good,they suggested that for achieving environmental sustainability, we have to move from the past utilitarian ethics and atomistic understanding of the world characterising science (both physical science and neoclassical economics) to an open, delibreractive approach emcompassing norms, values and different ethical stances of human in a collective social context. It is because past utility-based policy tools are actually an inapproriate way to deal with the environment as a public good. A self-interested individual may be willing to pay for better quality of drinking water but not global warming mitigation. Decision-makers have to think about what ethical motivations people have when dealing with global environmental problems - a different ethics is needed comparing to the exclusive economic pursit in the past few centuries.
So, there is tendency of (re)constructing a new ethics, new value theory as the world is confronted global issues like enhanced greenhouse effect. This is different from the emphasis of using technical means (by assuming high scientifc certainty) or economic tools (still based on utility maximization) in the past few decades.
Now there is a trend towards deontological values as an ethical basis of sustainable development. To this end, Funtowicz & Ravetz (1993) suggested that we are in the age of 'post-normal' science. Provided that the environment is a public good,they suggested that for achieving environmental sustainability, we have to move from the past utilitarian ethics and atomistic understanding of the world characterising science (both physical science and neoclassical economics) to an open, delibreractive approach emcompassing norms, values and different ethical stances of human in a collective social context. It is because past utility-based policy tools are actually an inapproriate way to deal with the environment as a public good. A self-interested individual may be willing to pay for better quality of drinking water but not global warming mitigation. Decision-makers have to think about what ethical motivations people have when dealing with global environmental problems - a different ethics is needed comparing to the exclusive economic pursit in the past few centuries.
So, there is tendency of (re)constructing a new ethics, new value theory as the world is confronted global issues like enhanced greenhouse effect. This is different from the emphasis of using technical means (by assuming high scientifc certainty) or economic tools (still based on utility maximization) in the past few decades.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Is science the key to global warming?
After reading several papers on global warming and relationship of science and society written by Dr Sp ash, I think it is useful to elaborate the main points in a few paragraphs before I meet him in person.
For those who find difficulties in reading what follows, bear in mind one thing: global environmental problems are not just a matter of science; whether there is scientific evidence of global warming or not does not change the conclusion that the ways we understand and 'operates' the environment are problematic.
Scientific proof is not the key point because of the human's inadequate understandings of the nature. Since science is established on laboratory settings, scientific 'evidence' is based on many assumptions and confined to existing knowledge. It has some key differences from the live world we face which is a dynamic, always changing system, both in subjective and objective sense (i.e. both values and facts). Even though we claim ourselves able to find the scientific 'truth', it would be misleading to suggest that this can determine correct policy conclusions.
Whether global warming exists is always controversial, not only because of scientific uncertainties but more of vested interests. As far as sustainable development is concerned, science is not everything. Kuhnian science extended from laboratory, or normal science which is in constrast to post-normal science (see Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1993), has missed humankind as an integral part of the natural world for centuries. Scientifically sound conclusions in natural science and economics literature manifest themselves ethically 'neutral'. But can we, or should we, achieve a fundamentally value-free sustainable path?
Another problem with science is the treatment to uncertainties. In natural science and economics literature there are professionally determined 'evidence' claiming that there is Problem A so that we need to do something for it, or the reverse.
Imagine you are playing puzzle game. If you cannot see how big the picture is, can you tell me precisely which pieces you are missing? No one knows, but we may still be able to make some ways to fix it. Given the numerous uncertainties, varieties and complexities of Earth's operations, can anyone PROVE that there is global warming? This applies to the reverse, can anyone DISPROVE that there is global warming?
Science can make figures precise, but it may be precisely wrong without anyone knowing this except the God.
A point I want to make is that: broadly speaking, every human activity can do harm to non-human entities, over time and space, so you never know what problems follow after solving Problem A. It is more important to develop the ways, or insitutions, through which we can find the appropriate and timely solutions whenever new problems arise, than to develop a single set of solutions to deal with a specific problem. The world is changing, so do the problems and hence solutions. It will not point to a hands-off approach even if global warming is PROVED inexistent.
For those who find difficulties in reading what follows, bear in mind one thing: global environmental problems are not just a matter of science; whether there is scientific evidence of global warming or not does not change the conclusion that the ways we understand and 'operates' the environment are problematic.
Scientific proof is not the key point because of the human's inadequate understandings of the nature. Since science is established on laboratory settings, scientific 'evidence' is based on many assumptions and confined to existing knowledge. It has some key differences from the live world we face which is a dynamic, always changing system, both in subjective and objective sense (i.e. both values and facts). Even though we claim ourselves able to find the scientific 'truth', it would be misleading to suggest that this can determine correct policy conclusions.
Whether global warming exists is always controversial, not only because of scientific uncertainties but more of vested interests. As far as sustainable development is concerned, science is not everything. Kuhnian science extended from laboratory, or normal science which is in constrast to post-normal science (see Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1993), has missed humankind as an integral part of the natural world for centuries. Scientifically sound conclusions in natural science and economics literature manifest themselves ethically 'neutral'. But can we, or should we, achieve a fundamentally value-free sustainable path?
Another problem with science is the treatment to uncertainties. In natural science and economics literature there are professionally determined 'evidence' claiming that there is Problem A so that we need to do something for it, or the reverse.
Imagine you are playing puzzle game. If you cannot see how big the picture is, can you tell me precisely which pieces you are missing? No one knows, but we may still be able to make some ways to fix it. Given the numerous uncertainties, varieties and complexities of Earth's operations, can anyone PROVE that there is global warming? This applies to the reverse, can anyone DISPROVE that there is global warming?
Science can make figures precise, but it may be precisely wrong without anyone knowing this except the God.
A point I want to make is that: broadly speaking, every human activity can do harm to non-human entities, over time and space, so you never know what problems follow after solving Problem A. It is more important to develop the ways, or insitutions, through which we can find the appropriate and timely solutions whenever new problems arise, than to develop a single set of solutions to deal with a specific problem. The world is changing, so do the problems and hence solutions. It will not point to a hands-off approach even if global warming is PROVED inexistent.
Friday, January 18, 2008
學海無涯
做研究真是不容易
要面對的不單是經費、資源問題，還有的是研究結果未如理想，更甚者是 - 如果是做social survey的話 - 受訪者對你所作的研究都不表支持
時間、精神上的消耗在所難免，但研究歷程裡的不確定性令你覺得彼岸總是遙遙無期
不知道能不能做到想要的結果，不知道去conference要怎樣present，不知道自己做的夠不夠好，也不確定自己的前途會如何......輾轉反側，連做夢也會唸著晚上看過的學術文章
學海無涯，原來是這樣的意思
要面對的不單是經費、資源問題，還有的是研究結果未如理想，更甚者是 - 如果是做social survey的話 - 受訪者對你所作的研究都不表支持
時間、精神上的消耗在所難免，但研究歷程裡的不確定性令你覺得彼岸總是遙遙無期
不知道能不能做到想要的結果，不知道去conference要怎樣present，不知道自己做的夠不夠好，也不確定自己的前途會如何......輾轉反側，連做夢也會唸著晚上看過的學術文章
學海無涯，原來是這樣的意思
Friday, January 4, 2008
Get published!
Another piece of good news - the manuscript I submitted to a peer-reviewed journal 'Energy Policy' is accepted for publication!
In academia, publications are very important to a researcher not only for job hunting but also promotion - as often said: 'publsih or perish'. My supervisor told me that when they recruited teaching staffs, those who did not have more than 3 publications before getting the PhD would normally not be shortlisted, let alone given an interview opportunity. 'Energy Policy' is within the top ten journals in the Environmental Studies category, ranked by impact factor. As a first-year MPhil student I think it is a big surprise to me. Hope that this will help my PhD application later this year.
The article is titled 'Merging electricity and environment politics of Hong Kong: identifying the barriers from the ways that sustainability is defined'. The idea and content are actually based on my MSc dissertation. I spent the later half of my summer holidy to get it finished. It's a bit more than 10,000 words, which is fairly long to read. It's a qualitative one based on secondary data only. This is a piece of comment from one of the reviewers of my article:
"Reviewer #1: I must commend the author for producing this excellent paper which provides a comprehensive review on the development of the electricity industry in Hong Kong. I concur with the views of the author as presented in the paper which faithfully reflect the status quo of the electricity policy of Hong Kong. Findings from the study are reasonable to help identify the barriers for sustainable development and reform of the Hong Kong's ESI in the future.
In conclusion, I recommend the paper be accepted for publication in the Journal of Energy Policy."
Actually, I have submitted another manuscript to another journal (but is of lower grade), again based on my MSc disseration. Hope that there will be more good news soon.
In academia, publications are very important to a researcher not only for job hunting but also promotion - as often said: 'publsih or perish'. My supervisor told me that when they recruited teaching staffs, those who did not have more than 3 publications before getting the PhD would normally not be shortlisted, let alone given an interview opportunity. 'Energy Policy' is within the top ten journals in the Environmental Studies category, ranked by impact factor. As a first-year MPhil student I think it is a big surprise to me. Hope that this will help my PhD application later this year.
The article is titled 'Merging electricity and environment politics of Hong Kong: identifying the barriers from the ways that sustainability is defined'. The idea and content are actually based on my MSc dissertation. I spent the later half of my summer holidy to get it finished. It's a bit more than 10,000 words, which is fairly long to read. It's a qualitative one based on secondary data only. This is a piece of comment from one of the reviewers of my article:
"Reviewer #1: I must commend the author for producing this excellent paper which provides a comprehensive review on the development of the electricity industry in Hong Kong. I concur with the views of the author as presented in the paper which faithfully reflect the status quo of the electricity policy of Hong Kong. Findings from the study are reasonable to help identify the barriers for sustainable development and reform of the Hong Kong's ESI in the future.
In conclusion, I recommend the paper be accepted for publication in the Journal of Energy Policy."
Actually, I have submitted another manuscript to another journal (but is of lower grade), again based on my MSc disseration. Hope that there will be more good news soon.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
A systemic bias in ecosystem valuation
After readings a few articles written by Dr Spash (who interviewed me last week) and some others, I get a couple of new thoughts on environmental valuation.
There is a systemic bias in traditional environmental valuation techniques, to whcih Dr Spash named as 'deontological bias'. When applying valuation techniques like Contingent Valuation Method (CVM), economists would usually classify zero bids or 'unrealistic' bids as protest bids and eliminate these from the average and aggreate WTP figures. But some protest-bidders might hold strong rights-based beliefs. They thought that any components of the nature have an inviolable right to exist and need to be protected whatever the costs. They were not irrational but simply did not believe that the monetary estimates could represent their unlimited 'values' attached to particular environmental products or goods. Under the current mechanisms this kind of responses is not counted. Consequently the WTP figures are biased to utilitarians who do have a 'value' in their minds.
The importance of such an utilitarian-deontological distinction lies on the ways 'values' are defined in current value system. Common economics beleifs suggest market prices represent the utility levels obtained by buying that good or service. By utility it does not actually imply whether that good or service exhibit certain actual 'functions' or not; it may refer to non-use preferences. Most economists do not reject this view. While prices represent an array of preferences of an individual, does it include deontological beliefs? Is it really presenting the whole picture?
Can prices, or valuation techniques like CVM, measure a 'price' I may impose on something to which I reject such a measuring practice? Put simply, I think my daughter or son is priceless, does it make sense if you ask me for a price? It is, however, still a problem if you deny the existence of an implicit value for that environmetnal good or services, given that, in philosophical sense, 'value' per se means the whole array of preferences, be it utilitarian or deonological. Exclusion of which is an ignorance of reality.
This draws many problems about how to incorporate these implicit beliefs into policy-making. The first one is, do we still need a value? I think the answer is 'yes', but we need to think seriously whether valuation should be treated as an end itself, or alternatively, a means to an end. Second, how can we precisely measure rights-based beliefs? Maybe by Deliberative Monetary Valuation (DMV) that Dr Spash is working on, probably including me as well if I am luckily accepted for the PhD studentship.
P.S. Now I understand why someone said every academic discipline, at the end, is a branch of philosophy. And that's why research doctoral degree is called 'Doctor of Philosophy' (PhD). It seems to me that sustainability is more like a philosophical quest.
There is a systemic bias in traditional environmental valuation techniques, to whcih Dr Spash named as 'deontological bias'. When applying valuation techniques like Contingent Valuation Method (CVM), economists would usually classify zero bids or 'unrealistic' bids as protest bids and eliminate these from the average and aggreate WTP figures. But some protest-bidders might hold strong rights-based beliefs. They thought that any components of the nature have an inviolable right to exist and need to be protected whatever the costs. They were not irrational but simply did not believe that the monetary estimates could represent their unlimited 'values' attached to particular environmental products or goods. Under the current mechanisms this kind of responses is not counted. Consequently the WTP figures are biased to utilitarians who do have a 'value' in their minds.
The importance of such an utilitarian-deontological distinction lies on the ways 'values' are defined in current value system. Common economics beleifs suggest market prices represent the utility levels obtained by buying that good or service. By utility it does not actually imply whether that good or service exhibit certain actual 'functions' or not; it may refer to non-use preferences. Most economists do not reject this view. While prices represent an array of preferences of an individual, does it include deontological beliefs? Is it really presenting the whole picture?
Can prices, or valuation techniques like CVM, measure a 'price' I may impose on something to which I reject such a measuring practice? Put simply, I think my daughter or son is priceless, does it make sense if you ask me for a price? It is, however, still a problem if you deny the existence of an implicit value for that environmetnal good or services, given that, in philosophical sense, 'value' per se means the whole array of preferences, be it utilitarian or deonological. Exclusion of which is an ignorance of reality.
This draws many problems about how to incorporate these implicit beliefs into policy-making. The first one is, do we still need a value? I think the answer is 'yes', but we need to think seriously whether valuation should be treated as an end itself, or alternatively, a means to an end. Second, how can we precisely measure rights-based beliefs? Maybe by Deliberative Monetary Valuation (DMV) that Dr Spash is working on, probably including me as well if I am luckily accepted for the PhD studentship.
P.S. Now I understand why someone said every academic discipline, at the end, is a branch of philosophy. And that's why research doctoral degree is called 'Doctor of Philosophy' (PhD). It seems to me that sustainability is more like a philosophical quest.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
I am coming to Australia!
A month ago I submitted a PhD studentship application to CSIRO, an Australian-based research organization. They had a phone interview with me this morning. It took 25 minutes, asking me why I want to do PhD in Australia, what I think about valuation and attitudes, and what I am going to do for my current MPhil project. They did not ask any tricky questions, except one that I was not well prepared to answer. It's more like they want to know a bit more about my present works and future plan. There were some questions about academic understandg. I think I won't be able to answer if I did not do any preparation. And it's great that I felt little difficulty in listening to native speakers on phone - I am very weak in English listening tests.
Twenty minutes after it was finished, the project leader called me back and talked about two things. The first is my availability - as I will not finish my MPhil until early 2009. The second is that he wanted me to pay a visit to Canberra to have a talks (I forgot to ask if there will be any formal interviews or presentations). That's great! Because they pay me the air tickets. I have been longing to go to Australia and now I get the chance for free! No matter I will finally be accepted or not, it is a valuable chance for me to meet a pretiguous scholar in this field and enjoy a nice journey with minimal costs.
Twenty minutes after it was finished, the project leader called me back and talked about two things. The first is my availability - as I will not finish my MPhil until early 2009. The second is that he wanted me to pay a visit to Canberra to have a talks (I forgot to ask if there will be any formal interviews or presentations). That's great! Because they pay me the air tickets. I have been longing to go to Australia and now I get the chance for free! No matter I will finally be accepted or not, it is a valuable chance for me to meet a pretiguous scholar in this field and enjoy a nice journey with minimal costs.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
香港環境問題的死結
今早跟我的指導教授談了半個多小時，談到為什麼香港的綠化政策會如此不濟，當中的原因或多或少也可以延伸至整體環境政策上
過去數十年，香港政府財政開支很倚賴賣地收入，亦因為這樣才承受得起低稅率，從而助推動經濟發展，我們的六十至九十年代的風光日子就在這樣局面下渡過。但這樣的其中一個惡果是城市規劃及發展偏袒地產商 – 若果他們沒法賺多點錢，就不能保持政府財政穩健，低稅率亦不能維持(另一個惡果是樓價偏高)，為了補償買地的大筆開支，地產商用盡地面面積起樓，只預留很少空間給行人路或作公共空間，造成城市過份擠迫，亦造成市區內缺乏可種樹的地方，想綠化也變得無地可『綠』，再不是就動輒斬樹。當年政府批出對電力公司相當吸引的利潤管制協議亦出於同樣思維 – 讓電力公司多賺一點，確保供電穩定性，結果犧牲的是空氣質素。
要扳到地產商，政府以及市民都要承擔得起後果，其中之一可能是加稅。在各方都要求政府多撥資源的同時，又要減低對賣地收入的倚賴，無疑是自斷雙臂，不，可能連雙腳也兼顧不了 – 有幾多市民甘願接受透過加稅來改善整體生活質素? 政府深明此道，即使對這個局面非常了解，但個個高官不敢輕舉妄動 – 誰個敢拿自己的前程來開玩笑? 『有!』 我老師說：『董建華敢』，當年他提出八萬五就是減低對市民對私人屋宇的倚賴，但結果如何?
現在看看曾蔭權，他實在不得不官商勾結。在漸趨民主的社會裡，哪個高官膽敢與民心背道而馳都會人頭落地，但環保開支不會從天而降 (社會福利、教育開支也如是)，那麼，只好再向地產商叩頭了。所以，我們現在看到的問題不單單政府肯不肯做，而是經濟發展歷史留下來大包伏，政府如何有決心也沒用，除非市民用實際行動支持，這裡包括 - 但不只於 - 多付一些稅。但現今民粹/民生主義抬頭，似乎事情將變得更複雜。
市民每天罵這罵那，有沒有好好想想自己的公民責任呢? 不單是改變個人習慣，而是改變思維模式。歸根究底，市民現在享有的經濟成果都是建立在環境成本之上，別老是說商人短視，也別老是說政府無心環保，這叫賊喊捉賊。羊毛出在羊身上，好好想清楚環保到底是誰的責任吧。
PS. 少少補充：這只是死結之一，另一個或許是香港的地理面積限制，另外其政治身份也可能有關 - 香港從來都不是一個國家，只是一個不起眼的小城市，沒有任何國際壓力
過去數十年，香港政府財政開支很倚賴賣地收入，亦因為這樣才承受得起低稅率，從而助推動經濟發展，我們的六十至九十年代的風光日子就在這樣局面下渡過。但這樣的其中一個惡果是城市規劃及發展偏袒地產商 – 若果他們沒法賺多點錢，就不能保持政府財政穩健，低稅率亦不能維持(另一個惡果是樓價偏高)，為了補償買地的大筆開支，地產商用盡地面面積起樓，只預留很少空間給行人路或作公共空間，造成城市過份擠迫，亦造成市區內缺乏可種樹的地方，想綠化也變得無地可『綠』，再不是就動輒斬樹。當年政府批出對電力公司相當吸引的利潤管制協議亦出於同樣思維 – 讓電力公司多賺一點，確保供電穩定性，結果犧牲的是空氣質素。
要扳到地產商，政府以及市民都要承擔得起後果，其中之一可能是加稅。在各方都要求政府多撥資源的同時，又要減低對賣地收入的倚賴，無疑是自斷雙臂，不，可能連雙腳也兼顧不了 – 有幾多市民甘願接受透過加稅來改善整體生活質素? 政府深明此道，即使對這個局面非常了解，但個個高官不敢輕舉妄動 – 誰個敢拿自己的前程來開玩笑? 『有!』 我老師說：『董建華敢』，當年他提出八萬五就是減低對市民對私人屋宇的倚賴，但結果如何?
現在看看曾蔭權，他實在不得不官商勾結。在漸趨民主的社會裡，哪個高官膽敢與民心背道而馳都會人頭落地，但環保開支不會從天而降 (社會福利、教育開支也如是)，那麼，只好再向地產商叩頭了。所以，我們現在看到的問題不單單政府肯不肯做，而是經濟發展歷史留下來大包伏，政府如何有決心也沒用，除非市民用實際行動支持，這裡包括 - 但不只於 - 多付一些稅。但現今民粹/民生主義抬頭，似乎事情將變得更複雜。
市民每天罵這罵那，有沒有好好想想自己的公民責任呢? 不單是改變個人習慣，而是改變思維模式。歸根究底，市民現在享有的經濟成果都是建立在環境成本之上，別老是說商人短視，也別老是說政府無心環保，這叫賊喊捉賊。羊毛出在羊身上，好好想清楚環保到底是誰的責任吧。
PS. 少少補充：這只是死結之一，另一個或許是香港的地理面積限制，另外其政治身份也可能有關 - 香港從來都不是一個國家，只是一個不起眼的小城市，沒有任何國際壓力
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Frustration
Feeling a bit frustrated about my project.
I approached quite a number of estate management offices to request for doing doorstep interviews in their housing estates. Most of them simply said "No". They don't want to cause any disturbance to the residents. The residents are well 'protected'.
People in HK is generally unwilling to take part in public affairs, probably including participating in questionnaire survey as well. They always walk very fast on the street and few will stay for more than ten minutes to complete a questionnaire even for non-profit making purposes. There is notoriously very weak sense of civil society in HK and they are not active to express their views. I guess people in the Western societies are cautiously open to doorstep interviews. But it seems in HK people are skeptical and feel negative to this, fearing that someone will use the information to do something illegal. A mail survey in NZ similar to mine received 60% response rate, which is impossible in HK. In a local telephone survey with the same topic as mine there is only 17% response rate which is terribly lower than acceptable standards. HK people have strong resistance towards telephone survey because of the overwhelming telemarketing messages (it's terrible, an hour ago the same person called me twice within 30 minutes to promote their products - the fourth time in past three months).
While HK people now ask for more welfares from the government, what do they contribute? Civil society is a slogan when people ask for democracy. The idea rapidly diminishes when they are asked to commit without direct benefits.
"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country" John F. Kennedy
HK people are not that level yet.
Anyway, I am now trying to figure out an alternative approach, or alternative means to approach potential interviewers. Telephone survey is no good given the above reasons. Maybe go to the public areas near the estates to find someone wandering around to interview~ The worst case would be simplifying my reserach question, that is, being less ambitious
I approached quite a number of estate management offices to request for doing doorstep interviews in their housing estates. Most of them simply said "No". They don't want to cause any disturbance to the residents. The residents are well 'protected'.
People in HK is generally unwilling to take part in public affairs, probably including participating in questionnaire survey as well. They always walk very fast on the street and few will stay for more than ten minutes to complete a questionnaire even for non-profit making purposes. There is notoriously very weak sense of civil society in HK and they are not active to express their views. I guess people in the Western societies are cautiously open to doorstep interviews. But it seems in HK people are skeptical and feel negative to this, fearing that someone will use the information to do something illegal. A mail survey in NZ similar to mine received 60% response rate, which is impossible in HK. In a local telephone survey with the same topic as mine there is only 17% response rate which is terribly lower than acceptable standards. HK people have strong resistance towards telephone survey because of the overwhelming telemarketing messages (it's terrible, an hour ago the same person called me twice within 30 minutes to promote their products - the fourth time in past three months).
While HK people now ask for more welfares from the government, what do they contribute? Civil society is a slogan when people ask for democracy. The idea rapidly diminishes when they are asked to commit without direct benefits.
"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country" John F. Kennedy
HK people are not that level yet.
Anyway, I am now trying to figure out an alternative approach, or alternative means to approach potential interviewers. Telephone survey is no good given the above reasons. Maybe go to the public areas near the estates to find someone wandering around to interview~ The worst case would be simplifying my reserach question, that is, being less ambitious
Monday, December 3, 2007
Is greenwash an evil?
This is my reply to an article. Before I talk I quote two paragraphs from it first:
"Supermarkets can provide the “greenwash” by producing buildings which, in isolation, might approach carbon neutrality, and by addressing easily identifiable issues like food sourcing, healthy eating, organic foods, the elimination of packaging or the use of recyclable packaging, but these are the tip of the melting ecological iceberg — products on the shelves still have the greatest ecological footprint.
Because of their size, retail chains can fundamentally change consumer patterns, which could lead to sustainable organic food production and supply. But this will not happen without a paradigm change in the food economy. Either the consumer makes the ethical choice or the politicians enforce genuine corporate responsibility. "
http://www11.discuss.com.hk/viewthread.php?tid=5905356&page=1&extra=page%3D1#pid120836973
Actualy it is ideality vs reality.
Clearly the 'Yes' camp is not showing any " genuine corporate responsibility". What they did is just a new marketing or operation strategy, it is still a business by nature. Another Bob from the 'No' camp is right in the sense that the increased consumption as a result may boost ecological footprint. So, is 'greenwash' an evil? It's more like there is an assumption that in the absence of greenwash, everything would get improved: carbon emission will drop and resource consumption will diminish. Put it simpler, is greenwash worse than business-as-usual?
As I said elsewhere, sustainable development is an extremely complex idea. There does not have a single solution that can make an enterprise immune from being unsustainable. Not to mention the most complex one - social aspects, it is quite unrealistic to think that you could have zero environmental cost for any good practices. HK people now 'love' recycle bags very much; however, its production takes a lot of energy and fibre materials, overuse of which may probably be more destructive than a wise use of plastic bags. Does it mean that we should keep the status quo?
If we know the net benefits of such 'greenwash' we can make a conclusive statement to the debate. But does it really matter if we can conclude that it does consume more than save? Is it meaningful only because of the measured contributions to ecological footprint? 'Greenwash', or I prefer using green marketing, embodies a paradigm shift. Firstly, the success of its green marketing strategies reminds its competitors and even other sectors the values of green products and services. No one can guarantee these products and services MUST be better than the 'brown' ones, but it is clear that the dominace of 'brown' will never be a sustainable option. We can expect that the true 'greenness' will rise as long as consumers are able and willing to choose according to environmental principles - this is related to the quality of people, information completeness, etc. Anyway, it should be seen as a good start, though imperfect.
Secondly, on the consumer side, it creates opportunities for them to go green. Not everyone is motivated enough to buy a farm to produce organic foods by themselves; nor are they capable of installing a renewable power system at their backyards (particularly in HK). They need a channel to elicit their environmental wishes. And the effects do not end here. First, their environmental behaviours may extend to other aspects of daily life once they adapt to such a good practice. When I become addicted to organic foods I may probably be more willing to support NGOs' anti-GM foods campaigns. Also, people are socially connected, my colleagues and relatives may be influenced by my good practices and become interested in organic foods too. Bear in mind that social pressure is a key to a big change in society at large.
So, green marketing is not an one-off process. One has to look beyond immediate negative impacts, if any, and assess by its long-term, aggregate effects. Perhaps, Bob Hayes has overlooked the fact that 'greenwash' is itself an early form of a paradigm change. To create a sustainable society we don't have to wait until a thorough paradigm shift. Green business is demand-driven. While our environmental 'minds' are still primitive (again, particularly in HK), we see imperfect solutions. We change slowly, but it is a good start anyway.
(Look at the recent no-plastic-bags movement in HK where some people collect too many recycle bags simply for fashion or for fun)
PS: I am curious what Bob Hayes means by "politicians enforce genuine corporate responsibility"? Can it really be 'enforced'? Corporate responsibility should be voluntary by nature.
"Supermarkets can provide the “greenwash” by producing buildings which, in isolation, might approach carbon neutrality, and by addressing easily identifiable issues like food sourcing, healthy eating, organic foods, the elimination of packaging or the use of recyclable packaging, but these are the tip of the melting ecological iceberg — products on the shelves still have the greatest ecological footprint.
Because of their size, retail chains can fundamentally change consumer patterns, which could lead to sustainable organic food production and supply. But this will not happen without a paradigm change in the food economy. Either the consumer makes the ethical choice or the politicians enforce genuine corporate responsibility. "
http://www11.discuss.com.hk/viewthread.php?tid=5905356&page=1&extra=page%3D1#pid120836973
Actualy it is ideality vs reality.
Clearly the 'Yes' camp is not showing any " genuine corporate responsibility". What they did is just a new marketing or operation strategy, it is still a business by nature. Another Bob from the 'No' camp is right in the sense that the increased consumption as a result may boost ecological footprint. So, is 'greenwash' an evil? It's more like there is an assumption that in the absence of greenwash, everything would get improved: carbon emission will drop and resource consumption will diminish. Put it simpler, is greenwash worse than business-as-usual?
As I said elsewhere, sustainable development is an extremely complex idea. There does not have a single solution that can make an enterprise immune from being unsustainable. Not to mention the most complex one - social aspects, it is quite unrealistic to think that you could have zero environmental cost for any good practices. HK people now 'love' recycle bags very much; however, its production takes a lot of energy and fibre materials, overuse of which may probably be more destructive than a wise use of plastic bags. Does it mean that we should keep the status quo?
If we know the net benefits of such 'greenwash' we can make a conclusive statement to the debate. But does it really matter if we can conclude that it does consume more than save? Is it meaningful only because of the measured contributions to ecological footprint? 'Greenwash', or I prefer using green marketing, embodies a paradigm shift. Firstly, the success of its green marketing strategies reminds its competitors and even other sectors the values of green products and services. No one can guarantee these products and services MUST be better than the 'brown' ones, but it is clear that the dominace of 'brown' will never be a sustainable option. We can expect that the true 'greenness' will rise as long as consumers are able and willing to choose according to environmental principles - this is related to the quality of people, information completeness, etc. Anyway, it should be seen as a good start, though imperfect.
Secondly, on the consumer side, it creates opportunities for them to go green. Not everyone is motivated enough to buy a farm to produce organic foods by themselves; nor are they capable of installing a renewable power system at their backyards (particularly in HK). They need a channel to elicit their environmental wishes. And the effects do not end here. First, their environmental behaviours may extend to other aspects of daily life once they adapt to such a good practice. When I become addicted to organic foods I may probably be more willing to support NGOs' anti-GM foods campaigns. Also, people are socially connected, my colleagues and relatives may be influenced by my good practices and become interested in organic foods too. Bear in mind that social pressure is a key to a big change in society at large.
So, green marketing is not an one-off process. One has to look beyond immediate negative impacts, if any, and assess by its long-term, aggregate effects. Perhaps, Bob Hayes has overlooked the fact that 'greenwash' is itself an early form of a paradigm change. To create a sustainable society we don't have to wait until a thorough paradigm shift. Green business is demand-driven. While our environmental 'minds' are still primitive (again, particularly in HK), we see imperfect solutions. We change slowly, but it is a good start anyway.
(Look at the recent no-plastic-bags movement in HK where some people collect too many recycle bags simply for fashion or for fun)
PS: I am curious what Bob Hayes means by "politicians enforce genuine corporate responsibility"? Can it really be 'enforced'? Corporate responsibility should be voluntary by nature.
Saturday, December 1, 2007
Trees as a social construct
Doing research is not easy. I realized this during the past three months. Some people simply take as a 'project' that they 'have to' do, but to me it is 'career', something that I 'want to' do.
Back to my theoretical world. As I look around the literature, I do think that the environment-society-economy circle is extremely complex. There are too many views, problems and solutions that no one can give one single answer. The question I need to solve for my project is how people think about trees. Trees are clearly a multi-dimensional construct that gives me a chance to observe how ecological and social / economic needs blend. To quote my early draft:
People’s attitude towards urban trees is dynamic. From an ecological point of view, the single-tree approach suggests more or less generic benefits regardless of cultural and demographic differences. Social complexities, however, make it never a fixed concept but a to-be-defined public good to which different levels of the society may have their own interpretations.
................
Age is commonly considered as the key factor affecting the views towards urban green spaces (e.g. Tarrant and Cordell, 2002; Sanesi and Chiarello, 2006; Balram and Dragicevic, 2005; Lohr et al, 2004; Zhang et al, 2007). Although green spaces as a place for socialising and leisure were well received by the young Italians in Sanesi and Chiarello (2006)’s study, Wong (2007) held a different view that youths in Hong Kong who have more alternatives available to them (e.g. shopping, computer games) may not. Perhaps, this may be related to childhood community as suggested by Lohr et al (2004) who thought that people who grew up in cities might have relatively little nature experience so that they have weaker affinity for trees. Likewise, income is predictive (Lozenro et al, 2000; Balram and Dragicevic, 2005; Jim and Chen, 2006a), but Kuo and others (Kuo, 2003; Sullivan et al, 2004) noticed that from a social perspective, it is inconclusive to suggest that people from poor communities place little value on green spaces. Given the social functions of trees, urban green spaces may benefit these people more than their wealthier counterparts. A similar observation is drawn from Taylor et al (1998) who confirmed that green spaces are valuable places for children healthy development, particularly those from poor communities. This leads to stronger demand from mid-aged families with children (e.g. Wong, 2007). On the other hand, Grove et al (2006) argued that households who strive for membership in a given lifestyle are motivated to have more vegetation in their homes. It is not only a matter of income, but a synergistic effect between the social position of individuals and neighbourhood dynamic. It is the neighbourhood atmosphere that also influences individuals’ decision.
Back to my theoretical world. As I look around the literature, I do think that the environment-society-economy circle is extremely complex. There are too many views, problems and solutions that no one can give one single answer. The question I need to solve for my project is how people think about trees. Trees are clearly a multi-dimensional construct that gives me a chance to observe how ecological and social / economic needs blend. To quote my early draft:
People’s attitude towards urban trees is dynamic. From an ecological point of view, the single-tree approach suggests more or less generic benefits regardless of cultural and demographic differences. Social complexities, however, make it never a fixed concept but a to-be-defined public good to which different levels of the society may have their own interpretations.
................
Age is commonly considered as the key factor affecting the views towards urban green spaces (e.g. Tarrant and Cordell, 2002; Sanesi and Chiarello, 2006; Balram and Dragicevic, 2005; Lohr et al, 2004; Zhang et al, 2007). Although green spaces as a place for socialising and leisure were well received by the young Italians in Sanesi and Chiarello (2006)’s study, Wong (2007) held a different view that youths in Hong Kong who have more alternatives available to them (e.g. shopping, computer games) may not. Perhaps, this may be related to childhood community as suggested by Lohr et al (2004) who thought that people who grew up in cities might have relatively little nature experience so that they have weaker affinity for trees. Likewise, income is predictive (Lozenro et al, 2000; Balram and Dragicevic, 2005; Jim and Chen, 2006a), but Kuo and others (Kuo, 2003; Sullivan et al, 2004) noticed that from a social perspective, it is inconclusive to suggest that people from poor communities place little value on green spaces. Given the social functions of trees, urban green spaces may benefit these people more than their wealthier counterparts. A similar observation is drawn from Taylor et al (1998) who confirmed that green spaces are valuable places for children healthy development, particularly those from poor communities. This leads to stronger demand from mid-aged families with children (e.g. Wong, 2007). On the other hand, Grove et al (2006) argued that households who strive for membership in a given lifestyle are motivated to have more vegetation in their homes. It is not only a matter of income, but a synergistic effect between the social position of individuals and neighbourhood dynamic. It is the neighbourhood atmosphere that also influences individuals’ decision.
Friday, October 12, 2007
I did it
Finally, I get a Distinction for my MSc, with a HKD500 cash prize as well. But I will be more excited if I can get the another cash prize of HKD6000 for the best disseration in the class. Seems that it has been awarded to someone else. Anywayz, I already did what I promised to myself at the beginning of the study.
Friday, October 5, 2007
Formation of environmental values
Values. What are values? Can be prices you pay in the market, can be your attitudes towards something. But how can we determine their relationship when there does not exist a market for that product?
Mainstream economists are more than familiar with the estimation of the values of non-marketed environmental goods. We got thousands of articles talking about the determination of values of different environmental goods; we got a long list of valuation techniques for us to make use of, too. Finally we got the numbers. But do we clearly understand how the 'numbers' are formed? Everyone in an introductory economics class can tell me the socioeconomics characteristics of the respondents (for Contingent Valuation Method) would matter.
But I am talking about the 'process'. Dr. CL Spaash, among others, suggested that when a small group of people could have a discussion before they stated the monetary values for certain environmental goods, the values would be different, comparing to individual interviews. This is a process that mimics the real delibrative process in a democratic society.
A large group of elderly and mid-age individuals living in the same public housing estate for more than 30 years may have different values too, because they have developed a strong sense of belongings to the built environment as well as the landscapes inside. An good example is trees, under which they roamed for no reason, they slept for a whole afternoon, they chated with each other. Their 30-year living in that estate is a process, a much longer process.
Contrast to neoclassical economic views, preferences can change along with temporal and spatial variations. Values are not only a reflection of individuals' rational behaviours, but are socially constructed - that means values are not a matter of one single person, but a group of people who are interacting with each other and with the environment as well.
I am preparing to capture the impacts of these variations on environmental values.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
What's Ecological Economics?
Forget to do one thing that I should do in the first post - to explain what Ecological Economics means. Quote from Wiki:
Ecological economics is a transdisciplinary field of academic research that addresses the dynamic and spatial interdependence between human economies and natural ecosystems. Ecological economics brings together and connects different disciplines, within the natural and social sciences but especially between these broad areas.
As the name suggests, the field is comprised of researchers with a background in economics and ecology. An important motivation for the emergence of ecological economics has been criticism on the assumptions and approaches of traditional (mainstream) environmental and resource economics. Ecological economics presents a more pluralistic approach to the study of environmental problems and policy solutions, characterized by systems perspectives, adequate physical and biological contexts, and a focus on long-term environmental sustainability. Ecological economics can be regarded as a version of environmental science with much emphasis on social, political, economic and behavioral issues.
Ecological economics' intellectual ancestry may be traced in large part to political economy, a refinement of early economic theory that includes among its earlier researchers Thomas Malthus, David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill. Mill, in particular, by hypothesizing that the "stationary state" of an economy might be something that could be considered desirable, anticipated later insights of modern ecological economists, without having had their experience of the social and ecological costs of the dramatic post-World War II industrial expansion.
The objective of ecological economics (EE) is to ground economic thinking and practice in physical reality, especially in the laws of physics (particularly the laws of thermodynamics) and in knowledge of biological systems. It accepts as a goal the improvement of human wellbeing through economic development, and seeks to ensure achievement of this through planning for the sustainable development of ecosystems and societies. It distinguishes itself from neoclassical economics (NCE) primarily by its assertion that economics is a subfield of ecology, in that ecology deals with the energy and matter transactions of life and the Earth, and the human economy is by definition contained within this system. In contrast, NCE has historically assumed implicitly (and, more recently, explicitly) that the environment is a subset of the human economy. In this approach, if nature is valuable to our economies, that is because people will pay for its services such as clean air, clean water, encounters with wilderness, etc.
So, it is clear that EE is not a branch of economics but a hybrid of various pentinent disciplines. Urban ecological economics, the field I am working on, is a combination of economics, urban planning and human/physical geography as well. As strange as it is in HK, I sometimes feel lonely when I find no one to share except my supervisor. Well...perhaps, as he said, doing research is a lonely journey.
Ecological economics is a transdisciplinary field of academic research that addresses the dynamic and spatial interdependence between human economies and natural ecosystems. Ecological economics brings together and connects different disciplines, within the natural and social sciences but especially between these broad areas.
As the name suggests, the field is comprised of researchers with a background in economics and ecology. An important motivation for the emergence of ecological economics has been criticism on the assumptions and approaches of traditional (mainstream) environmental and resource economics. Ecological economics presents a more pluralistic approach to the study of environmental problems and policy solutions, characterized by systems perspectives, adequate physical and biological contexts, and a focus on long-term environmental sustainability. Ecological economics can be regarded as a version of environmental science with much emphasis on social, political, economic and behavioral issues.
Ecological economics' intellectual ancestry may be traced in large part to political economy, a refinement of early economic theory that includes among its earlier researchers Thomas Malthus, David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill. Mill, in particular, by hypothesizing that the "stationary state" of an economy might be something that could be considered desirable, anticipated later insights of modern ecological economists, without having had their experience of the social and ecological costs of the dramatic post-World War II industrial expansion.
The objective of ecological economics (EE) is to ground economic thinking and practice in physical reality, especially in the laws of physics (particularly the laws of thermodynamics) and in knowledge of biological systems. It accepts as a goal the improvement of human wellbeing through economic development, and seeks to ensure achievement of this through planning for the sustainable development of ecosystems and societies. It distinguishes itself from neoclassical economics (NCE) primarily by its assertion that economics is a subfield of ecology, in that ecology deals with the energy and matter transactions of life and the Earth, and the human economy is by definition contained within this system. In contrast, NCE has historically assumed implicitly (and, more recently, explicitly) that the environment is a subset of the human economy. In this approach, if nature is valuable to our economies, that is because people will pay for its services such as clean air, clean water, encounters with wilderness, etc.
So, it is clear that EE is not a branch of economics but a hybrid of various pentinent disciplines. Urban ecological economics, the field I am working on, is a combination of economics, urban planning and human/physical geography as well. As strange as it is in HK, I sometimes feel lonely when I find no one to share except my supervisor. Well...perhaps, as he said, doing research is a lonely journey.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)