“Green Economics”: Turning Mainstream Thinking on Its Head

A few years ago, a homeowner in Las Vegas—a place that gets maybe five inches of rainfall a year—was confronted by a water district inspector for running an illegal sprinkler in the middle of the day. The man became very angry. He said, “You people and all your stupid rules—you’re trying to turn this place into a desert!”

Ideas about how the world works that don’t accord with reality can be unhelpful. That’s especially true about mainstream economics, which is based in part on ideas that made a lot of sense at some point in the last 250 years but that have outlived their time and usefulness. These ideas—such as the reliance on GDP as the key index of general wellbeing—still dominate assumptions and thinking about economic matters in the media, governments, businesses, and popular consciousness.

But in recent decades, economics theoreticians and researchers have suggested a variety of reforms that would make economics truer, greener, and more sustainable. My colleague Gary Gardner and I describe seven of these in Chapter 1 of the Worldwatch Institute’s latest report, State of the World 2008: Innovations for a Sustainable Economy:

1) Scale. How big is the global economy relative to the global ecosystem? This is crucial, because the economy resides totally inside the global ecosystem—the ecosystem gives the economy a place to operate, supplies all of its raw materials, and supports it with many critical services. In physical terms, economic activity is basically converting bits and pieces of the ecosystem to human uses: trees and forests into lumber and houses, grasslands and other habitats into farms to feed the billions of humans, and so on.

We’ve gotten really good at economic growth. Since Adam Smith’s time, the number of people in the world has exploded from about 1 billion to nearly 7 billion. And in the last 200 years, Gross World Product has risen by nearly a factor of 60. The ecosystem has suffered as a result, hence the headlines we see every day: climate change, species extinctions, dwindling rainforests, water shortages, and all the rest.

Piecemeal, we’re starting to get the message about the economy’s scale. For instance, we know that there’s too much carbon floating around for the system to handle benignly. Last year, more than 90 major corporations, including General Electric, Volvo, and Air France, called on governments to set goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and the European Union has set up a carbon cap-and-trade system.

Waste minimization is another way to reduce scale. Every year we dig up and process more than half a trillion tons of raw materials—and six months later more than 99 percent of it is waste. That can be fixed too: Ray Anderson’s Interface carpet company is a leader in this area, reducing manufacturing waste by 70 percent since the mid-1990s and saving over $300 million while doing it.

2) Stress development over growth. That is, make the economy better at satisfying human needs, not simply bigger.

This is partly about eco-efficiency. It’s now cost-effective to boost resource efficiency by at least a factor of four—and possibly by a factor of 20. And given the need for billions of people to grow their way out of dire poverty, we have to pursue these gains.

But it’s also about asking the question, what is an economy is really for? Not only can the global economy not keep growing forever, growth isn’t even working for many of us in wealthy nations anymore: U.S. per-capita income has tripled since 1950, for instance, but the share of Americans who say they’re very happy has dropped over the last 30 years. Studies in hedonic psychology reveal that higher incomes only improve life satisfaction up to a point. The research also says that the more materialistic people are, the lower levels of happiness they report. And it says that there appears to be a correlation between rising consumption and the erosion of the things that do make people happy, especially social relationships, family life, and a sense of community.

In response, a lot of people are rejecting the competition and get-ahead mentality of consumerism. They’re downshifting and pursuing voluntary simplicity all over the globe, and they’re taking collective action via campaigns for healthy eating, work leave for new parents, and shortened workweeks. The governments of Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom have made wellbeing a national policy goal, and there is a lot of interest in indicators that measure wellbeing more directly than GNP.

3) Make prices tell the ecological truth. Cheating a bit here—this isn’t really a conceptual reform. Every economist knows that markets fail when prices don’t reflect actual costs. The reform would be actually applying this rule to the ecosystem. For instance, climate change is arguably the result of failing to charge for dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Another example is human-caused species extinction. We’re basically dismantling our life-support machinery, and by and large until recently nobody paid for it. Fortunately, governments and business are beginning to experiment with carbon markets, water pricing mechanisms, and conservation banking. Carbon market trading was worth $59 billion in 2007, and there are now several hundred wetlands and species banks in the United States alone.

4) Account for nature’s services.This is closely related to #3. In the United States, the pollination performed by honeybees is worth about $19 billion per year. There’s also air and water purification, soil generation, pest control, seed dispersal, and nutrient recycling, among the many other services that nature provides. Tearing up ecosystems undermines these services, so some countries have begun trying to value them properly. Costa Rica, for example, pays landowners to preserve forests and their biodiversity, with the money coming from fuel taxes and sale of environmental credits to businesses. Mexico and Victoria, Australia, have also set up systems to assign values to formerly free services.

5) The precautionary principle. This is just the age-old wisdom of “first, do no harm” and “look before you leap,” but applied to public policy toward new products (like chemicals) and technologies that could pose serious risk. Ordinary risk analysis asks, “How much environmental damage will be allowed?” But the precautionary principle asks, “How little damage is possible?” Today we’re seeing the principle adopted more and more widely. The Maastricht Treaty that created the European Union in 1991 puts the principle at the center of its environmental policy, and San Francisco made precaution official policy in 2003.

6) Commons management. People generally believe that there are only two workable regimes for managing resources: private property or government control. But commons management regimes are a third way, one that taps the strong human impulse toward cooperation and the common good. Commons management has proven itself over centuries of experience—there are collectively managed irrigation systems in Spain that were begun in the 15th century, for instance, and other commonly managed forests and pastures in Switzerland, Japan, the Philippines, and Indonesia that are centuries old. Commons management lives and thrives today in such things as Wikipedia, community gardens, and farmers markets everywhere. The writer and entrepreneur Peter Barnes has suggested that the atmosphere, which everyone ought to own, could be successfully managed and protected via a commons regime. Ocean fisheries might be as well.

7) Value women. Economic systems ought to be gender-blind but they’re not. A UN report in the 1990s noted that “most poor people are women, and most women are poor.” All over the world, women earn less than men for equivalent work, they lack access to land and credit, and they do more than their share of child- and elder care, volunteer work, and other unpaid labor. There is evidence that this gender bias actually suppresses economic activity. In response, a few governments in industrial countries are trying to develop policies that take unpaid work into account. Muhammad Yunus’s Grameen Bank in Bangladesh is using the terms of its loans to help to ensure that wives are legally entitled to their share of a couple’s assets. And the microfinance movement appears to have given millions of women a valuable economic boost.

These seven ideas are hardly the only changes brewing in economics, but the innovations described in State of the World 2008 can generally be traced to one or more of them. Hopefully, they are on the way to transforming economics from “the dismal science” into more of a delightful one—or, to paraphrase E.F. Schumacher, into an economics as if people and the planet mattered.

Tom Prugh is editor of the Worldwatch Institute’s bimonthly magazine, World Watch, and co-director, with Gary Gardner, of State of the World 2008.

Ideas about how the world works that don’t accord with reality can be unhelpful. That’s especially true about mainstream economics. But in recent decades, economics theoreticians and researchers have suggested a variety of reforms that would make economics truer, greener, and more sustainable.

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Initiatives by the city of

Initiatives by the city of Savage in 2008 safeguarded and enhanced the quality of life our residents have come to enjoy and expect. Thanks to great relationships with our neighboring cities, Scott County, local organizations and private parties, we were able to make many accomplishments on several fronts. Most notable was the construction of the McColl Pond Environmental Learning Center at Savage Community Park. This investment in our youth, our environment and our community was made possible through a generous contribution of private funding mixed with public, non-taxpayer dollars. The building will benefit people of all ages -- a place where children and adults alike can learn about the environment and see reusable building practices in place. Now available for reservations, the McColl Pond ELC also answers the need for space in which groups can gather and celebrate or meet to conduct business.

Green Economics is a great

Green Economics is a great idea to develop our society in all aspects.

The African peoples, well,

The African peoples, well, poor buggers, they may have outstripped the Indians in terms of breeding except for 2 things, wars and disease. So war and disease does keep populations down and we know that we tend to breed like flies after wars - remember the Baby Boomers of the West?

I migh be agree with you

I migh be agree with you philosophy here but i have an experience about it.

Consider that the

Consider that the exhalations of breath and other gaseous emissions by the nearly seven billion people on Earth, their pets and livestock are responsible for 23% of all greenhouse gas emissions? If you add on the fossil fuel burnt in the total activity of growing, gathering, selling and serving food, all this adds up to about half of all carbon dioxide emissions. Think of farm machinery, the transport of food from the farms and the transport of fertiliser, pesticides and the fuel used in their manufacture; the road building and maintenance; the supermarket operations and the packaging industry; to say nothing of the energy used in cooking, refrigerating and serving food. Doesn't this mean sustainability is really an issue of human population?

Alot of our sustainability

Alot of our sustainability questions arise from the fact that our fathers and their fathers were rabid overusers of nonpotable water. IE irrigation. We are creatures of habit, we find ourselves becoming more like our ancestors in mannerisms and actions. Can we do a 180 is the question. It looks bleak, we will be our demise.
------------
T.S. Doxs MGR
Disaster Site Services

I'd have to second that,

I'd have to second that, Greywe. As much as I am an environmentalist and do whatever I can to limit the damage inflicted on this planet, I think bawling over trees that have been chopped down already is a little bit much. If I were in their shoes, I would accept it as a great and tragic loss and then move on to the next project, if that means saving the next batch of trees that will be unnecessarily chopped down in the Amazon as a result of Americans' gluttonous McDonald's habits :D

There is always room for

There is always room for possibilities.Thoughts are just real if you work hard on it.Nice article!

This reminds me of a video

This reminds me of a video I seen just the other day. A crowd of young activists (all around 20 years of age) crying in the forest over dead trees that had been cut down. It was really pathetic...they were balling their eyes out! Some where praying out loud some just flat out angry! Some were actually caressing and embracing the tree trunks I understand "Green" and whats it all about..but come on!
Sometimes it just goes too far!

Sequencing

i find that sequencing and establishing precedence based upon necessity is a major problem. Yep chicken or the egg rears its head again. In order for any human economic activity to take place there needs to be a natural environment. Establishment and/or maintenance of that environment takes precedence over all else, therefore it ought to be in a class by itself in that NOTHING comes before it and nothing can take place without it. Giving a "value" to the output of honeybees does not establish its place in the necessary sequence of "economic" activities. As all that tends to happen is that it gets dropped in a basket of other economic values. (Perhaps the need to simplify down to a simple set of figures is more a reflection of out minds limited capabilities at absorbing and processing information? - 1,2,3,4,5 many?) If we take away all the emotive terminology from all sides and look at what is necessary for all life to continue, develop, expand etc then we are presented with the basis for the human species continued survival. As it happens, because we are one species amongst many, the necessary conditions for our survival also happen to be those of other species survival also. Even more importantly and essentially there are pre-conditions that are required; MAJOR pre-conditions, e.g. air, water, earth, light and anything which negatively impacts against those is a capital offence against the whole planet and the importance of such negative activity ought to result in a very serious outcome for the offender but a good thing for the planet - yep, death and composting. Money matters not one whit if you have insufficient air to breathe or water to drink. We also have a major problem. How do we regulate and reduce our species numbers down to one that suits our environments? Note that, so WE suit the environment, NOT the other way around. This is where we get into uncomfortable territory, seriously uncomfortable. Do we need war and violence? Are there any other ways of overcoming our natural species urge to procreate, gather security (food and shelter)? Now this is where we need to acknowledge WHAT we are. We can have a quick look around the world and see if that is workable and needs to be factored in to any economic model. Most of the white sub-species are at ZPG and seem to be weeding themselves out of existence. The Chinese folks are prolific and are draining their environment as their numbers are not decreasing. The worst group would appear to be the Indians and the Indonesians, but the Indians for sure. Why? Because they are fecund beyond belief and the do not have sufficient wars and violence to reduce their numbers so they are spreading around the globe. The African peoples, well, poor buggers, they may have outstripped the Indians in terms of breeding except for 2 things, wars and disease. So war and disease does keep populations down and we know that we tend to breed like flies after wars - remember the Baby Boomers of the West? Well, Africa is like that all the time which i find heart breaking but it is "the human condition" as it is with other species. i find Dr.Hoppe's talk of needing an accurate vocabulary quite heartening, but the vocabulary needs to be across the board and not just to the economists. Further, the vocab needs to be based upon what we ARE not what we imagine ourselves to be. That is to say, we are a nasty, sex-crazed, aggressive bunch of little bleeders and breeders, much like a mink amongst others; this is building one's house upon rock. The other way is unreal and builds upon sand, i.e.we are rational, reasonable, creatures able to control our instinctive drives and overcome our emotions. In a pigs eye we are.

Green Economics/ to the attention of Tom Prugh

Dr. Thomas Hoppe
Independent researcher: Chinese and Central Asian Studies,Environment

I would be interested to read more, if you have!

"Stress development over growth!" Just a short note! The ambuiguity of the term sustainable development is well known.
I propose to use the term "reproduction", and, instead of development the term "extended reproduction", often we even need a "restoration of reproduction" - in the sense of ecological restoration. The ecosphere has to be maintained in a state of reproduction, basically all human impacts (development)should be in compliance with the reproduction of the ecosphere. Actually they are not, as you show under the heading 'scale'. Ongoing climate change is a global experiment in ecosphere development under human impact. Are we able to manage this kind of development? Language, terms can lead us astray - as the term "sustainable development" does, which more often than not only helps to instigate further growth in abolute terms.
We must start a discusssion about the steady state economy, or, even about a world economy which decreases in absolute figures, i.e. about a reduction of material flows, energy consumtion..., in order to secure reproduction of the global ecosphere.
An example from maritime transport: Any tiny improvement realized in ecological performance of fleets is simply "eaten up" by the ongoing increase in world-wide logistic services, increase in worldwide tonnage, increase in utilization of fossil fuels. We need both an absolute reduction of worldwide tonnage (fuel consumtion), worldwide trade volumes, and an improvement of their ecological performance. It sounds very authoritarian, but, in order to attain a reasonable level of fuel consumtion of world fleets, a future world government or the UN would have to set a fixed amount of fuel consumtion which allows for the reproduction of the ecosphere.
Admitted, difficult to talk with a politician or the entrepreneur about a steady state economy or decreasing world economy.

You do realize that a steady

You do realize that a steady economy is only found in Utopia. If there wouldn't be so many fluctuations then we wouldn't have rich and poor, we would have rich and very rich. This cannot be. The two extremes should coexist just to keep a balance. --- Mary-Anne Davis, flood damage repair expert.

About the Quality of Life

About the Quality of Life. A Consumers' Vision

source: economischegroei.net - economic growth - conference 2008 jan 10 at the University of Tilburg Netherlands following the OECD conference about "Beyond GDP"

Why is every producer wrestling for stakeholder-value for stock-owners? Why is a consumer shopping and hopping to get lowest prices only? Because everybody is in a desperate fear for not having enough income. And in fact that is the reason why nobody is really interested in quality first! In quality of products and services, in the quality of the labour situation, of fair prices and so on, in sustainability, in quality of life!

But in fact our income is not an economical factor but a (human) right! In the same way as for instance two men, a sick woman and a little child on a Robinson Crusoe Island have to live of what those two man gather for food! In a globalized world we have to share our wealth in the same way among all people. Depending on what we need for our individual development: a reasonable income is a right! Thus between two dollars a day and ten million a year we've got yet a lot to discuss about what's reasonable. Haven't we? If we think about our big world-family as a creation or as a big bang (for dummies) doesn't matter. One way or another we have to deal with it in a way of 21st century (mature?) consumer/citizens should!

But the word itself contains the solution already: REASON-able ! In the same way all social systems are developed on the basis of reasons for what we really need we have to complete that puzzle also for the last group consumers among us who are producers as well for 40/168 part of the week ........... And that discussion is now in a current since two years. Everybody is now discussing about basic incomes and top salaries. But the puzzle is how we manage that whole spectrum in between? For that we need the word 'reasonable' to find reasonable solutions! I think. If those inter-human financial relations are better solved in the near future then only then everybody can really think about sustainability and quality in general. Not haunted anymore by values or prices alone!

Peter Daub
consumer360.org

A New Deal for Globalization (Essay)
Kenneth F. Scheve and Matthew J. Slaughter
Foreign Affairs July / August 2007 p. 34-47
Globalization has brought huge benefits but inequality is greater than ever.
To save globalization, the best way is by redistributing income

The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid
Eradicating Poverty Through Profits
Prof C.K. Prahalad
ISBN 0-13-146750-6
About consumer needs in poor societies
and the opportunities for the private sector
to serve with profit says Madeleine Albright
Top ten bestselling marketing book in the US