Ecological economics emerged in the 1970s, as a sub-field of mainstream economics, using some of the conventional tools of neoclassical economics, but trying to move away from it, not only regarding some of the theoretical choices, but also distancing from some of the ethical concerns of the mainstream (Holt and Spash, 2009). Even though there were precursors to ecological economics, in particular the work of Kenneth Boulding, Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen and Karl William Kapp, it is clear that the profound crisis of capitalism in the early 1970s, and the preoccupations with population growth, famine, and exhaustible resources, exacerbated by the oil shocks, were central for the sudden prominence of environmental concerns within the economics profession. Paul Ehrlich’s book,
This is an excellent article Matias. I come at this issue from the perspective of someone with a background in environmental science and forestry who is also deeply interested in heterodox economic theories. In my view, the way to reconcile the disagreements between advocates of degrowth and advocates of a Green New Deal is to focus more on material resource consumption and pollution than on GDP. Milanovic speaks as if degrowth advocates want to aggressively shrink GDP, which isn't really true. They basically want to focus on reducing resource consumption and let GDP fall where it may. If technological optimists believe that we can increase GDP while reducing resource consumption and pollution, they should happily jump at the offer to test the theory.
The current level of resource consumption and pollution is far beyond what the Earth's ecosystems can support, which is why the climate is warming, fisheries are collapsing, and we are experiencing a mass extinction event. Ultimately, we must adjust the economy to ecological reality, because without a healthy environment, there is no economy. Fortunately there are ways to reduce pollution and resource consumption without harming human well-being. Some notable examples are replacing fossil fuels with renewable and nuclear energy, getting rid of planned obsolescence and making products which last longer, and investing in public transportation to reduce automobile usage. Other interesting ideas are imposing caps on the usage of certain resources or taxing resource consumption.
This is an excellent article Matias. I come at this issue from the perspective of someone with a background in environmental science and forestry who is also deeply interested in heterodox economic theories. In my view, the way to reconcile the disagreements between advocates of degrowth and advocates of a Green New Deal is to focus more on material resource consumption and pollution than on GDP. Milanovic speaks as if degrowth advocates want to aggressively shrink GDP, which isn't really true. They basically want to focus on reducing resource consumption and let GDP fall where it may. If technological optimists believe that we can increase GDP while reducing resource consumption and pollution, they should happily jump at the offer to test the theory.
The current level of resource consumption and pollution is far beyond what the Earth's ecosystems can support, which is why the climate is warming, fisheries are collapsing, and we are experiencing a mass extinction event. Ultimately, we must adjust the economy to ecological reality, because without a healthy environment, there is no economy. Fortunately there are ways to reduce pollution and resource consumption without harming human well-being. Some notable examples are replacing fossil fuels with renewable and nuclear energy, getting rid of planned obsolescence and making products which last longer, and investing in public transportation to reduce automobile usage. Other interesting ideas are imposing caps on the usage of certain resources or taxing resource consumption.