A couple of weeks ago I attended the International conference on Ecological Economics, held in Rio de Janeiro just a few days before the Rio+20 UN Summit, where a few hundreds researchers have been presenting their work together with some high-level keynote speakers (Peter Victor, Mathis Wackernagel, William Rees, the Prime Minister of Bhutan, Ignacy Sachs and others).
One of the most debated topics during sessions and informal discussions seemed to be the one nef has been intensively working on lately, that is Ecological Macroeconomics (otherwise termed Macroeconomics of sustainability). The aim of this line of research is to give sound macroeconomic foundations to ecological/environmental issues, and more in general to include sustainability (including financial sustainability) into the macro picture.Read it at nef | new economics foundation
Towards an Ecological Macroeconomics
Emanuele Campiglio | Economics researcher
Steve Keen gets a shout out.
"Sustainability" is the new buzz word. MMT is ahead of the curve on financial sustainability.
To budding economists — integrating financial and non-financial sustainability is the cutting edge field in economics.
"Sustainability" is the new buzz word. MMT is ahead of the curve on financial sustainability.
To budding economists — integrating financial and non-financial sustainability is the cutting edge field in economics.
5 comments:
I seems a lot of people are unhappy with the current neoliberal economic regime. Another conference (connected to OWS I think):
http://mathbabe.org/2012/07/09/center-for-popular-economics-summer-institute-2012/
Tom, you are quite right to describe “sustainable” as a buzz word. The word is now used so indiscriminately that it has become meaningless.
As for the idea, trotted out by NEF and others, that macroeconomics and environmental / ecological considerations need to be merged, that’s nonsense. We simply need to apply the rule “the polluter pays”. E.g. carbon based fuels should be taxed to an extent that reduces their usage to a level that the environment can cope with. Not that the human race will ever actually do this.
Having imposed the above tax, the rules of macroeconomics can be left as they are.
Actually the do need to be merged because the environment is more about pollution. It includes global warming, ecosystems loss, extinctions, etc. The common theme is that they involve human activities. And you can't address those issues without balancing human needs with the rest of the environment. Population is best controlled by empowering women. Humans are generally social hence the movement toward urban areas. the upcoming decades will likely see a a positive convergence or not so good times.
Sustainability with ecological restoration is possible that includes urbanization with population leveling off:
http://mikethemadbiologist.com/2012/07/10/urban-density-for-humans-and-the-five-story-rule/
Though higher more spacious residential buildings may be built via the chines company example (Broad Group).
With electricity generation worldwide:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOoBTufkEog
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XLGpgbg_AXY
And innovations like Urban farming:
http://www.verticalfarm.com/
Though you are right about the carbon tax in part due to the Hydrocarbon Greens opposition to Gen IV nuclear. Also the political leadership does leave a little to be desired.
http://truth-out.org/news/item/10195-america-the-beautiful-a-fire-sale-for-foreign-corporations
Quote: "Tom, you are quite right to describe “sustainable” as a buzz word. The word is now used so indiscriminately that it has become meaningless."
Yes and the entire idea itself is stupid and anti-physical. Evolutionary Adaptation is the only sustainable path in this and that requires constant change, reinvention, and growth (and death) which is exactly the opposite people using the term "sustainable" mean.
Most sustainable ideas involve finding a fixed and traditional way of doing things and never questioning the sustainable path.ii I believe Einstein called it madness.
No wonder the oligarch love such ideas.
I would define "sustainability" operationally in terms of rules that themselves obey a system's parameters, recognizing that some systems are simple, other complex, some static and others dynamic, some stable and some instable, and so forth. Many of the problems involving sustainability involves rules that don't fit the type of system which they are controlling, or aren't flexible to change in systems that are changing.
Basically, it's usually the status quo issue v. adaptability. Often it is the free riders that have carved a niche in the status quo that resist rule change that they see as not in their interests, and if they are in positions of power and influence, they will do their level best to thwart coordination and adaptation.
Post a Comment