The no-growth platform is a fetishism of use-values, and ignores the production and distribution of value as a totality. Furthermore, as a war of position, it is politically deadly.

World-ecology! :)

The presumption that "economy" and "ecology" are independent is part of the problem itself.

Have you considered "political ecology"? Try Paul Robbins recent seminal text on the field of study (http://au.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-EHEP002294.html). Or, for some more postructuralist ponderings have a look at Noel Castree's 'social nature' work.

What counts as a paradigm? Relative to theorizations?

Hi David,

Maybe not a paradigm, but a tool would be systems dynamics. Best, AE

In my view the most up to date "paradigm" is the UN SEEA. It is a framework not a paradigm but in my view it requires a paradigm shift for many. There are two parts Central Framework and Experimental Ecosystem Accounts – I would focus on understanding the former and then thinking about applying the latter.

Over the next month or two there will be additional guidelines coming on line for part two.

Cheers

I understand that according to Thomas Kuhn, paradigms are puzzles. They constitute the basic ideas that guide groups of researchers. The year 2015 is crucial. The so-called Millenium Development objectives, are changing toward "Sustainable Development Objectives, including now much more related goals to environment. A new time horizon is being advanced. It will be the year 2030. Instead of 8 objectives that were agreed in the year 2000 by 189 countries, now the aim is a similar agreement that would include 17 ones. It seems to me that based in the famous definition of the Brundtland Commission, they are equivalent to a "Paradigm". I recommend "The Age of Sustainability", by Jeffrey Sachs from the U. of Columbia. He also is the main adviser in this area to Ban Ki Moon, the General Secretary of the UN.

It is popular in the right wing to assume that if there is a benefit to the environment that there must be a cost to the economy. But this relies on simplistic GDP/income oriented calculations which assume that if it results with $1 more in my pocket, that this is a net gain regardless of the environmental damage and the effect that this might have on future production or wellbeing. In this case, you could look to work on "green GDP".

Also, if one assumes that the economy always operates at a perfect equilibrium (false, but more easily justified than alternative assumptions, unless you do a lot of work), then one might assume, again, that anything that benefits the environment must have a net negative impact on production potential. But this ignores one of the most easily explained example of externalities, and it can be easily demonstrated that in at least some cases there will be a net benefit in forcing polluters to pay for damages because this enables the market to reach the equilibrium which fully accounts for all costs.

Finally, the assumption/propaganda from the right wing is always that any measure which is good for the environment will cost jobs, whereas in many cases regulations and interventions can be job creators which yield net benefit to the economy and society once considering the often-difficult-to-measure external costs and benefits to the activities being analyzed.  

recently, several publications explored the relation using the capability approach. I find this approach very useful. 

The green economy offshoot of the sustainable development concept (SDC) seems to be most appropriate. It reminds me of a revolutionary change from the geocentric to helio-centriv view of the universe. The SDC is based on the tree pillars of development - economic, social, and ecological. The economists infer to the similar three kinds of capital. The green economy concept takes the same triad but places them like a Russian nesting doll. Our natural environment is the outer shell that contains   humankind society that dealls with the economy. The two latter dolls should sustainaby develop obeying natural boundariries of the outer shell whiile nowadays the economy with technological change is the major driving force of development. It is assumed that it determines (a) the human (population) development and even its number as well as (b) ''rules' the nature. The failure of the Biosphere 2 project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2 ) was .not a good lesson for humankind that still blindly believes in limiteless power of science and technology. and pursues the trials-and-error approach.to development.  .

The green economy concept is supported by ecological economics, circular  economy (waste management), third industrial revolution concepts.  Government and business plus human communities increasingly get involved. Pecuniary valuation of living environment is sailient part  of the green economy concept in order to assess impact of economic development on nature and feedback expected. For example, $6.22 trillion has been invested since 2007 in the global green economy ( http://www.climateactionprogramme.org/news/global_green_economy_hits_6.2_trillion ) or  the asset value of the world’s oceans is identified at the asset value of the world’s oceans at $24 trillion- the equivalent of the seventh largest global economy.at $24 trillion (http://www.climateactionprogramme.org/news/valuing_the_earths_oceans_at_24_trillion_is_likely_a_huge_understatement/)..

. 

Interesting paradigms to examine the environment-economy relationship are

1) Biophysical limits to growth e.g. challenging the neoclassical model of environment as a limitless input into the economy. Check out the work on Planetary Boundaries by Johan Rockstrom (Stockholm Environment Institute)

2) Substitution issues between the environment and technology

3) Environmental change, economic growth and development pathways e.g. environmental Kuznets curve.   

4) Poverty and environment relationships

For 2, 3 & 4 and a variety of other paradigms take a look in M Common and S Stagl “Ecological Economics” available for free download from CUP http://ebooks.cambridge.org/ebook.jsf?bid=CBO9780511805547 

Kenneth,

I'm not a leftist per se, I merely point out that the dogma of the right wing, most definitely today in Canada, is that anything that is good for the environment will negatively impact the economy. I then refer to green GDP and accounting of externalities as reasons to suppose that this thinking is overly simplistic. I'm not taking about taking your hard earned money, I'm talking about a regulatory framework which ensures that your hard earned money does not end up directed towards investments which create an overall economic bad due to externalities (this is a first year textbook case).

I do not deny that there CAN be a cost to the number of dollars of GDP production in economy in the process of the social tradeoffs where a society evaluates its priorities, I merely argue that it is not NECESSARILY the case.

In some cases, measures which benefit the environment will be a net cost to the number of dollars of GDP production. In some cases, measures which benefit the environment will produce net benefit for the economy by fixing market failures which do not allocate cost and benefit to all parties according to standard assumptions about property rights, liability, etc.

I criticize the right wing because, for the cases that I am more familiar with in Canada and the USA, the right wing is most guilty of using first year textbook solutions (and here they often don't even make it to the second half of the text) without allowing for any real world nuance.

Again, it's not about taking your hard earned money, it's about ensuring that if you create a damage for me, that this has to be accounted for in your cost function (but not in cases where this would introduce "too high" accounting costs for a small benefit). Otherwise, you have an economically suboptimal outcome. This is the epitome of a negative externality, fixed by regulation, resulting in net economic benefit. 

«might welcome a longer growing season.» Climate change is not a linear process. If climate change stopped at 1ºC maybe you were right, but that is not the case. Reasoning on a loser/winner framework about climate change is not a good option.

The winters are not trending colder. Don´t mistake the all world with US East Coast, Kenneth. Sadly only a few thousand people live where warming is occurring at an alarming pace. But that area of the planet is fundamental for its balance (climatically speaking).   

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=anoms&mean_gen=04&year1=2015&year2=2015&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=rob

That is not true, at a global level, at least! For the US (48 states) below. For me, there is a clear trend. I regret that such an Institution as the Smithsonian keeps feeding this kind of denial. Bad service.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/weather-climate/temperature.html

I'd like to bring you attention to an international effort to address this topic. The SEEA (System of Environmental-Economic Accounting) is a measurement framework developed by the UN, World Bank, European Commission, IMF and OECD. It includes advice on establishing accounts that link the environment to the economy: minerals, energy, water, carbon, biodiversity, ecosystems...It is an international statistical standard and, since 1992, has been implemented, in part, by over 70 countries. The current focus of development is to better account for ecosystems and their services.

The SEEA is intended to help establish ongoing compilation of these accounts by statistical agencies or other national agencies charged with compiling official statistics. It has been accepted by many international agencies and platforms as a contributing measurement framework that includes concepts, classifications and methods.

While the SEEA doesn't address the climate debate above directly, it provides guidance on how to measure various components of it so that we can focus on the policies and not debate the numbers.

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/seea.asp

By the way, «Professor Jones' previous comment, from a BBC interview in Febuary 2010, is routinely quoted - erroneously - as demonstration that the Earth's surface temperature is not rising»

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-13719510

The problem is not necessarily with respect to "warming" temperatures, per se, but CLIMATE CHANGE.

Well, since your are a distinguished scientist I don´t need to tell you why the year you picked is a bad choice for a term of comparison. And of course climate change is about extremes and a few are cold spells. So what?

Since the debate on warming is heating up here, let's see what the rocket scientists have to say about the matter.

"NASA, NOAA Find 2014 Warmest Year in Modern Record"

http://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record

I would take the work of the rocket scientists on the matter over just about anyone.

As for arctic ice coverage, 2014 was the second lowest coverage on record, after 2012: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/sea_ice.html

Not very consistent with the picture that things have been cooling since 1998.

FYI, winters trending cooler in Europe is consistent with the fear of reduced salinity (from ice melting) leading to less mixing and a reduction in the Gulf Stream. It's a horror story scenario for Europe and I hope to hell they are wrong.

As for the post war "cooling" and the supposedly post- 98 pause I would recommend in return that you do some research about the role of industrial SO2 (sulphur dioxide), besides other factors.

http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2008/05/postworld_war_ii_cooling_a_mir.html

http://phys.org/news/2011-07-global-linked-sulfur-china.html

Applying fund voting on environmental questions which have economic relevance is an analysis of that kind. You can read short about it on

http://www.abcd.is/en/research.html

and an extensive presentation in my ebook Democracy with sequential choice and fund voting.

This piece is my first attempt at providing an introduction to the topic at hand. 

Article On Human Drivers of Environmental Change: A Theoretical Consideration

"Do tell us, José, why 1998 was a "bad" choice. "

- If you're talking about trends, picking outlier data as a point of comparison will easily lead to misplaced conclusions. Some statistical methods even eliminate outlier data altogether. Climate fluctuates, and so picking outlier data will lead to erroneous conclusions, and that's why you should focus on trends and no specific data point. You are focusing intensely on a specific datapoint when the underlying phenomena is one which fluctuates.

Also, it is always possible to cherrypick subperiods which are consistent with your conclusion and reject the overall trends, which also is what you are doing.

Both of these are classic ways to draw false conclusions. But hey, challenging the orthodoxy should keep the climate scientists on their chops, including the need to better communicate basic principles of statistical analysis to the broader public (like they care, probably just want to read what confirms pre-existing world views ...).

If the data fluctuates, good statistics is concerned with averages and trends, not outlier datapoints.

And how come you're completely ignoring the NASA report that 2014 was the warmest year on record. That doesn't look like a hiatus to me. But because I'm not dishonest with stats, I'm not making a big deal out of what could turn out to be another outlier point (2014), and will instead wait to see trends and averages, like an honest statistician would.

Outlier points should draw questions like "Why was 1998 so warm?" not "what can we determine about averages and trends from this outlier point?"

Oh yeah, and CO2 is a greenhouse has and we're putting lots of it into the atmosphere. These two facts make the warming hypothesis a pretty reasonable one. Can you motivate a reason that the opposite effect would occur? (e.g., weakened Gulf Stream ...)

In a data series that fluctuates, you will always be able to find subperiods that agree with any hypothesis. This should draw questions like "why does climate fluctuate?" not "what universalized conclusion can I draw from sub-periods?", unless in fact you have sufficient data on other variables to start to explain the reasons for these anomalies. Perhaps there were lots of sunspots in 1998? But, the question of sunspots does not refute the fact that CO2 can be experimentally demonstrated to have greenhouse gas properties, using the same experiments that tell us that methane is 18 times more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2.

I am more of the process maturity model. The notion of process theory is best discussed by my favorite philosopher of management: Edgar Schien.

You appear to be suggesting that we should draw conclusions about global climate on the basis of US data without considering the global data presented by NASA (linked to above. 2014 was the warmest year on record. 

Table 2.13 | Regional observed changes in a range of climate indices since the middle of the 20th century. (IPCC V AR WG1 p. 211).

https://docs.google.com/document/d/11l5zYCbfOFVadvz7vUgb_qRJhjl5tFsGrMt6K7lIeWo/edit?usp=sharing

Kenneth, we're discussing global warming and climate change, not the weather in America.

Since it appears that you didn't read the link I provided from NASA, I have copied the link to the data and methodology used to determine that 2014 was the warmest year on record.

________________________________________________

The data set of 2014 surface temperature measurements is available at:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

The methodology used to make the temperature calculation is available at:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources_v3/

It's based on satellite images, so no need to worry about where the thermometers are.

It mentions that ocean surface temperatures will soon be incoroporate, and good point about the distinction of where the measurements are taken from. I have no doubt that this issue concerns most or all climate scientists.

I don't know the ins and outs of all the modelling, but the folks who do have the following to say:

"We conclude that global temperature continued to rise rapidly in the past decade, despite large year-to-year fluctuations associated with the El Niño-La Niña cycle of tropical ocean temperature. "

I don't think anyone at NASA is prepared to embarrass themselves by publishing BS, so I`m pretty OK with taking this sort of statement at face value.

I think the most relevant thing to say though, since we clearly aren`t going to agree on this, and since I`m pretty sure neither one of us is actually a climate scientist, is the following: The quality of data and analysis just keeps on getting better and better. 

But that also leads me to think that there`s not much point in bothering with sources which are more than a decade are two old, given the ongoing improvements in data and methods. The worst case scenario in spending money on climate research is that we will understand climate better, and this can have loads of relevant applications from agriculture and fishing to transportation and disaster planning/preparedness.

You might get a lot of suggestions to use 'sustainable development'. Be aware, however, that 'development' includes dimensions other than economic and environmental ones such as social, cultural or political concerns. These additional dimensions make it difficult to define sustainability in quantifiable terms, and sometimes the use of non-declining wellbeing or welfare is suggested. This does not help much, unless we return to income, wealth or consumption as proxies. Such return actually means using 'sustainable growth' as the paradigm – a narrower but quantifiable paradigm. You might check out the 3-author discussion in Environmental Development 7, 165-170: Bartelmus (2015). 'The future we want: green growth or sustainable development'.

@ Kenneth

Decade old data helps to establish trends, but decades old analysis only tells us which methods were used prior to newer and better analytical methods.

Same page IPCC: «The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability

distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential.»

«But Karl says that the warming trend is clear up to the end of 2014. That holds true even if researchers choose 1998, which saw extreme heat associated with an El Niño weather pattern in the tropical Pacific Ocean, as the starting point for such an analysis.»

http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-hiatus-disappears-with-new-data-1.17700?utm_source=Daily+Carbon+Briefing&utm_campaign=ea6fd303cf-cb_daily&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_876aab4fd7-ea6fd303cf-303429069

«As shown in Fig. 1, there is no discernable (statistical or otherwise) decrease in the rate of warming between the second half of the 20th century and the first 15 years of the 21st century. Our new analysis now shows the trend over the period 1950-1999, a time widely agreed as having significant anthropogenic global warming (1), is 0.113°C dec−1, which is virtually indis-tinguishable with the trend over the period 2000-2014 (0.116°C dec−1). Even starting a trend calculation with 1998, the extremely warm El Niño year that is often used as the beginning of the “hiatus”, our global temperature trend (1998-2014) is 0.106°C dec−1 – and we know that is an un-derestimate due to incomplete coverage over the Arctic.»

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/06/05/science.aaa5632

What happened to the paradigm question?

Biophysical economics

Economics and Thermodynamics: Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen

http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/150665/

http://classiques.uqac.ca/contemporains/georgescu_roegen_nicolas/decroissance/decroissance.html

I have my reservations about the contributions of Georgescu-Roegen - his framework is a closed system, when, in actuality, capitalism is an open system dynamic.

Yes, it is a closed system in physical terms - in the sense we don´t exchange matter with space - which is ignored by mainstream economics. We still exchange energy, but at present exhaustion of fossil fuel we should prepare to live according to the sun supply of energy which would imply a massive turn to renewables and a much slower rhythm in our economies, a redefinition of our entire economies.

Fair enough, but there is a danger in accepting the "no-growth" paradigm.

Article Is Zero Economic Growth Necessary to Prevent Climate Catastrophe?

Article The Limits to Entropy: Continuing Misuse of Thermodynamics i...

Article The Great Bifurcation and Prospects for Solar Communism in t...

Article The Growth Imperative: Beyond Assuming Conclusions

We might think those limits (biophysical) are still far away but they aren´t.

http://sustainable.unimelb.edu.au/sites/default/files/docs/MSSI-ResearchPaper-4_Turner_2014.pdf

http://climateandcapitalism.com/2015/04/22/what-strategy-for-an-ecological-great-transition/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+climateandcapitalism%2FpEtD+%28Climate+and+Capitalism%29

http://www.greattransition.org/publication/bounding-the-planetary-future-why-we-need-a-great-transition

Yes I wrote a small essay in portuguese about the problematic of growth. And it depends on your definition of what growth is. Anyway Roegen is not marxist as far as I know.

The no-growth platform is a fetishism of use-values, and ignores the production and distribution of value as a totality. Furthermore, as a war of position, it is politically deadly.

I admit they are politically dead but that doesn´t mean they are necessarily wrong.

The theoretical framework for this study i suggest is the ecological modernization theory.

The theory was first developed in the 1980s by Huber. According to Huber (1985.20) cited in Mol and Spaargaren (2000.20), the industrial society should undergo a transition toward an ecologically rational organization of production on the basis of a changed relationship between he economy and ecology. He termed this transition an “ecological switchover” and stated that through this process, “the dirty and ugly industrial cater-pillar will transform into and ecological butterfly”. Also, Mol and Spaargaren (1993) contend that the central institutions of modern society can be transformed to avoid an ecological crisis. Gouldson and Mruphy (1997:75) and Hajer (1995) opined that ecological modernization is an analytical approach as well as a policy strategy for environment discourse. According to Weale (1992:78), ecological modernization is based on the invention, innovation and diffusion of new technologies and techniques of operating industrial processes government action in these areas is a focus of ecological modernization theory. Murphy (2000) used the idea of ecology modernization to explain that the integration of environmental policy goals into all policy area of government is considered as central to a programme of ecological modernization. Thus ecological modernization is understood as suggesting a government led programme of actions with various key elements. Ecological modernization shares with Beek (1999:40) on the notions of he necessity of emergence of new forms of environmental governance, sometimes referred to as sub politics or political modernization, where the environmental movement, community groups, businesses, and other stakeholders increasingly take on direct and leadership roles in stimulating environmental transformation. Also it has been used to analyze changes to the central institutions in modern society that are deemed necessary to solve the ecological crisis. Ecological modernization s also used to describe a more pragmatic political program to redirect environmental policy making.

Tenets of the Theory

·         Ecological modernization posits restructuring of modern institutions to follow environmental interests, perspectives and rationalities.

·         The function of the nation-state is changing from one that is exclusive, centralized, and bureaucratic to one that is more decentralized, flexible, inclusive, and participatory.

·         Government integration of environmental concern into development policy.

·         There is need for environmental governance, i.e the need for new forms of governance.

·         Integration of environmental policy goals into all policy area of government is considered as central to a programme of ecological modernization.

·         Government led programme of actions has a greater role to play in environmental change rather than NGO’s consumers.

·         Ecological Modernization requires the integration of environmental policy into other areas of governmental action, such as economic activity, reform of the tax system along ecological lines, taxing exploitation of environmental resources, and the development of clean technology.

This quote about ecological modernization «Reflexive (or Ecological) Modernization which assumes that employment of scientific information—along with technological innovation and the market—allows modern societies to solve environmental problems without major modifications of their economic systems and growth trajectories (Mol and

Spaargaren 2000)» in my view completely misunderstands the deep global environmental crisis, namely climate change!

http://www.opendemocracy.net/olivia-bina/green-economy-fix-our-ends-not-just-our-means

I think that one needs to consider carefully the assumption of economists (rationality, equilibrium, etc) and assumptions of environmentalists (complex interacting system, sustainability, etc) and then to see what can be matched in interdisciplinary picture.

To my mind, the first ideas of economics that should be abandoned in such interdisciplinary study should be unlimited growth, full rationality, equilibrium. We live on the Earth, and its resources are limited, both non-renewable (in stock) and renewable (in sustainable flow). Resource and energy should enter macroeconomic production function.

The influence of those resource limitations  on economy are well presented in the book of Brian Czech "Supply shock" (2013). You can also have a look at my conference paper here on RG (its 1st part presents 3-dimensionsl nonlinear dynamic system for an interaction between economics and nature):

"Low-Dimensional Nonlinear Dynamical Systems as a Tool for Socio-Economic Modelling" Yuri Yegorov, 6th International Conference on Logic and Methodology (RC33), Amsterdam, Netherlands; 08/2004

hi

this may offer some insights :

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5547c707e4b0e8aadbc53a05/t/55520236e4b0872f41a7058a/1431438002852/Rewriting+the+Rules+Report+Full+Report+-+Single+Page+Final.pdf

David: I think the crucial paradigmatic move is transcend the economy/ecology binary -- which is indeed central to the structures of knowledge that have brought us to the present, disastrous, state of affairs. Your comment on de-growth and utility -- and they have gone back to utility -- is therefore absolutely correct: a value relational approach would unfold and illuminate the mutual constitution of labor-power and the web of life in historical capitalism. This is, at any rate, the direction in which the world-ecology conversation has been moving.,,

index of sustainable economic welfare.

This question requires some framing I would say, as the relationship between economic and environmental performance can be asked at different levels, including individual business firms, products, countries. Each of these boundaries has different implications, which help to explain why the answers to question (does it pay to be green) range so widely. You may find an article helpful that I wrote with marcus wagner 

Article Assessing the Relationship between Economic and Ecological P...

A paradigm involves theoretical as well as practical concerns. One has to look at the evolution of economic theory and ecological elaborations simultaneously. This is not related till the end of the eighties with the Brundtland Commission. Then, the concept of Sustainable Development was defined and since then a lot of theory and policies have been agreed. This year 2015, will witness the agreement of around 195 nations at the United Nations changing the so-called Millenium Development Objectives to Sustainable Development Objectives. There is almost a consensus that instead of 8 objectives we will have 17 ones, and the new ones are related to environement but searching for linkages with a multidisciplinary perspective and future generations. The new horizon will be the year 2030. Thus, the new paradigm is Sustainable Development. See the work of Jeffrey Sachs at the Earth Institute in the University of Columbia, New York.

I just wrote quoting my article on the subject "Renewable Energy in the Light of Fifty Years of Development Experiences, 1960-2010". There we examine all paradigms that have influence the field of development throughout all this period.

Ken....I believe that they manage categories such as "likely...highly likely...and so on" with each having a degree of probability. The environmental paradigm that reached greater visibility was the report made by the Club of Rome in the seventies....The population variable was considered here. I consider it's a dimension that is part of the environmental focus and therefore also has to be included in any "sustainability" analysis. In fact Malthus was the one that rang the bell here since the end of the nineteen century. Sustainability has to be multidisciplinary and the demographic question is inherent to its approach.

Sustainability is a concept that focuses on the long term. The model of overlapping concentric circles with the environment as the largest circle followed by the social (including political) and lastly the economy I find most appealing. But how do we operationalise this concept in a profit driven economy. Full cost pricing is one method but no business or government is willing to do this. 

Sustainability Theory &  Marxist political economy theory will be of help

Hello, good day to all.  From my point of view under sustainability there is no right and there is no left, there is unity.  Under sustainable development, it can be fit to the left or to the right under deep systems or towards win-win situations under partnership systems as the eco-economic partnership dominant today and the one related to the original question posted.  You may find these two papers interesting:

Eco-Economic Development Under Social Constraints: How to Re-Direct it toward Sustainability?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26422758_Eco-Economic_Development_Under_Social_Constraints_How_to_Re-Direct_it_toward_Sustainability

A Qualitative Comparative Way of Pointing Out the Expected Social Externalities Associated With the Creep in Nature of Current Eco-Economic Approaches to Development Issues.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281244571_A_Qualitative_Comparative_Way_of_Pointing_Out_the_Expected_Social_Externalities_Associated_With_the_Creep_in_Nature_of_Current_Eco-Economic_Approaches_to_Development_Issues

Have a good day

Article Eco-Economic Development Under Social Constraints: How to Re...

Article A Qualitative Comparative Way of Pointing Out the Expected S...

Dear DAvid and friends, you may find the ideas on paradigm evolution shared recently:

Utilitarianism, Raw Liberalism, Moral Liberalism, and True Sustainability: Basic Paradigm Foundations, Changing Assumptions, and the Evolution of Development Paradigms

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281277111_Utilitarianism_Raw_Liberalism_Moral_Liberalism_and_True_Sustainability_Basic_Paradigm_Foundations_Changing_Assumptions_and_the_Evolution_of_Development_Paradigms

My warm greetings to all

Article Utilitarianism, Raw Liberalism, Moral Liberalism, and True S...

Economy and environment relationship can best be understood using the process model to contextualize theories in the social phenomena.

The previous UN development goals are more generic concepts of development. But if one conducts a textual reduction of MDG's, discern-able are the notions of inclusive development, sustainable development, and human capital development.

I enjoyed reading all valued comments and opinions

Despite rhetoric on conceptualising sustainable development paradigm rooted in its three pillars/dimensions- economic, environment and social, its actual implementation for assessing and attaining this goal is seldom an easy task due to unavoidable trade off associated with this nexus. With mounting population pressures and rising extreme inequality trends in the foreseeable future, it is a herculean task what Kenneth has rightly coined in the Venn diagram the challenge of making development equitable and bearable. The crux of the problem lies in failure to discover thus far the surest way and means to the curb dangerous income and wealth inequality facing this century, for the marginal utility of earning more and accumulating wealth seldom diminishes and this tendency is wealth accumulation is further perpetuated ( as propounded by Thomas Piketty) so long as rate of return on capital exceeds the rate of economic growth.      

I am not denying that wealth inequality can not be legislated away in this material world. That is the reason why I admit that making the development  equitable and bearable is a herculean task, for that matter the sustainable development (SD) goal . Under such circumstances , the real concern in this debate is then which paradigm(s)  the most suitable and desirable ?. Do we need to pursue the conventional dirty economic growth paradigm that is voiceless, jobless and ruthless, or we need OECD led green growth paradigm in contrast to UNEP led green economy that is rooted again in same pillars of SD. ( sorry I may have overlooked your earlier deliberations on this ).   

Dear Kenneth your statement is fully true under the traditional market model of Adam Smith, social inequalities and environmental inequalities are needed to maximize profits and the worse they get the better the maximization process works, I call them social and environmental sustainability gaps or accumulated social deficits and accumalated environental deficits.....If you legislate any of the two gaps away you will affect the maximization process....you will distort the market the traditional thinking goes.....if if you are an economic man that is a "no" "no".... Non-traditional thinking has shown that markets have always been distorted anyway ever since Adam Smith assumed social and environmental neutrality in the traditional market....

Your stamenent may be partially true under green growth, the eco-economic model of today,  as this market has closed the environmental sustainability gap to create win-win situations....it can be said that envionmental inequalities have been legislated away,,,,,at least in theory, do not you think so?... The green economic man is not the economic man as it is less selfish and more inclusive.....and it should be expected to reflect the mutual self-interest of the economy and the environment....not the pure self interst of the economy....The green economic man needs social sustainability gaps or social deficits or social inequalities as you call them to exist...

Under sustainabililty markets you do not have sustainability gaps so you do not have to legislated anything away, the market is a win-win-win market under optimal growth, a fully inclusive market.

In the coming days I will share a paper showing that sustainability gaps are the forces that in the long-term bring down models based on the simplification of reality like Karl Marx's red socialist model and Adam Smith's bare capitalism model and why....The death of Karl Marx's model lead of socio-capitalism(eg. china and formar soviet bloc members) and the deat of Adam Smith's model led to the eco-economic model, enviro-capitalism.....

As you may know I look at the future and think in terms of the future, the economic man is dead, the green economic man is the one the needs everyone's attention now.  If we can face environmetal sustainability gaps head on as it is being done now, why not social sustainability gaps?

Greeting to all and happy new year.

Dear friends, it looks like sharing ideas in good faith here leads to people downvoting your contritution anonnimusly ,, I am disappointed at RESEARCHGATE for providing a secret  action that undermines positive academic discourse and the growht of knowledge as then somepeople can take action without academic responsibility..... I politely leave this discussion and wish you all a good new year.

Respectfully yours;

Dear Kenneth, there is not need for downvoting at this level of thinking, neither once.

I am hearing in the open to share ideas and to interact with the ideas of others, I am not here to put people down in the open or to put people down through the underground.  There is not dumb idea as the one sharing it serious when sharing it and I believe we are here because we want to learn from each other or share ideas with each other, do not you agree?.

Thank you for your time in replying Kenneth.

Happy new year to you and all in the site.

According to the UNDP 1998 Report, environmental degradation was a product of both greed and affluence. Hence, the notion of profit maximization of economic determinism framework at the expense of natural resources available in the biosphere is simply not acceptable.  Economic utilization of the biosphere must be done within the context of responsibility.

Kenneth:.  

My approach is simple, if I had nothing to contribute, I do not participate or criticise.  I always welcome criticism, positive or negative.  I never downvote or put down anybody even if I see their academic positions are weak or I perceived that they will not change their positions regardless....I just move on...

AND I would never downvote someone simple because I am not able to academically counteract their position/ideas.... that wouldbe anti-academic...

Have a good day

Good day Sherlito, your statement is right.  That was part of the 1987 Bruntland commission's criticism of the traditional market model/pure economic model of Adam Smith; and part of the  reason for calling for sustainable development fixes, which since then has been used to justify moving away from business as usual on socially and environmentally unfriendly grounds; and the 1998 UNDP report you mention it is pointed out an environmental justification for change, which in 2012 led to the RIO/UNCSD formalization of eco-economic markets/green markets to replace Adam Smith's pure economic model.....which is environmentally responsible economic utilization model.....

So now we live in a world that accepts the need to stay away from irresponsible economic only utilization....

I see two problems now:

a) No clear connection between current market structure and actions such as the recent global warming agreement or with the current and new sustainable development agenda and its new 17 goals.

It is clear that we are living in an environment-economy partnership today and we appear to be dealing with issues such as global warming issues from within this environment-economy partnership, but international planners like those at the UN behind the "current sustainable development programs and the current 17 sustainable development goals" seem not very interested in making a clear connection between the global warming agreement signed 2015 in Paris nor with SD agenda justification in their website with green economy markets.....Is the current sustainable development agenda and 17 goals supported by eco-economic market thinking only or not?....that is a million dollar question today in my view…

See some of those development goals may not be able to be reached meaningfully through green markets....

b) The Bruntland commission said fixed environmental and social externality gaps, so fixing head on the environmental sustainability gaps leaves the fixing of social sustainability gaps still undone and it is being left to future generations to deal with it…

Sherlito, I will share soon, early these years, some papers that will expand these ideas. 

Have a nice day

Kenneth,:

the people who will decide are probably the same that have been designing the global agenda so far....Our job as academics, at least mine, is to find ways to put together economic frameworks or models that can make their planning and decision makeing easier and more socially and environmentallyfriendly as possible.....

We are not polititians nor decision makers, we are or are supposed to be the science that supports their decision making process...do not you agree?....let's stop being so pessimistic or do you think that we reached the end of creativity, Karl Popper would be disappointed if he heard that.... let's think and share the ideas that will run the future....

Wish you a nice day

For me a paradigm can be constructed after a thorough exploration of ideas, experiences, and situations across cultures with the guidance of the scientific communities. We have to settle this question: Is invisible hand theory of Smith divergent with sustainable development or is there a possibility of convergence between the two.