4 November 2015, The Daly News, Time to Stop Worshipping Economic Growth. There are physical limits to growth on a finite planet. In 1972, the Club of Rome issued their groundbreaking report—Limits to Growth (twelve million copies in thirty-seven languages). The authors predicted that by about 2030, our planet would feel a serious squeeze on natural resources, and they were right on target. In 2009, the Stockholm Resilience Center introduced the concept of planetary boundaries to help the public envision the nature of the challenges posed by limits to growth and physical/biological boundaries. They defined nine boundaries critical to human existence that, if crossed, could generate abrupt or irreversible environmental changes. The global economy must be viewed from a macro-perspective to realize that infringement of the planetary boundaries puts many life support ecosystems in jeopardy. Without functional ecosystems, the very survival of life forms, as well as human institutions, is put in doubt, including any economy. There is no economy on a dead planet!. These boundaries apply to te economy because the economy is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the ecosystems that make life on earth possible. (Some understanding of ecology should be a prerequisite for an advanced degree in economics!) Scientists are concerned that we have already overstepped the boundaries on biogeochemical flows(nitrogen) and biosphere integrity (genetic biodiversity). Read More here
Tag Archives: Economy
3 November 2015, Bloomberg View, What Economists Don’t Get About Climate Change. Economists tend to see climate change as a big optimization problem: Weigh the potential costs of future disasters against the benefits of fossil-fueled economic growth, and find a price of carbon that will balance the two. Unfortunately, it’s an illusory goal. The Cost of Carbon Consider, for example, a recent study by Yale University’s Kenneth Gillingham and colleagues. Using a collection of so-called “integrated” models of climate and the economy, they seek to get a better handle on how various uncertainties — in weather, population growth and technological development — might affect the price that policy makers should put on carbon. Their conclusion: No matter what happens, the optimal price in 2020 would probably be no more than about $50 per ton. The paper’s appearance may be timed to influence policy makers at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris, which begins at the end of this month. It really shouldn’t, because it feigns certainty in areas where none is to be had. Granted, such integrated models include some realistic climate physics and economics. Yet their builders inevitably face crucial questions about which we know very little. For example, just how sensitive are global temperatures to the addition of further carbon dioxide? And how much economic damage can we expect from a temperature rise of, say, 2 degrees or 5 degrees? Read More here
1 November 2015, Common Dreams, ‘Absolute Crap’ But Brilliant: Corporate America’s Plan to ‘Misbehave Without Reproach. ‘Only in the senile, decrepit, and unbelievably corrupt modern version of the United States would this sickening decadence even be considered possible, let alone doable.’ An independent investigation by journalists featured in the New York Times on Sunday offers an in-depth look at the way American corporations have used the inclusion of “arbitration clauses” within consumer contracts to strategically circumvent judicial review of their behavior and immunize themselves from class action lawsuits –”realistically the only tool citizens have to fight illegal or deceitful business practices.” “You can’t shoot someone or rob a bank and say ‘It’s OK, I have a contract.'” —Paul Wallis, Digital Journal. What the Times found was a pattern of legal dead ends for consumers seeking to find redress for perceived injustices due to various forms of corporate fraud and malpractice. Often buried deep within lengthy and difficult-to-read contracts that purchasers of products or services are forced to sign, legal experts say the injection of these arbitration clauses “have essentially disabled consumer challenges to practices like predatory lending, wage theft and discrimination.” As the newspaper reports: Read More here
26 October 2015, Yale Connection. The New Climate Economy. A global study finds that climate action and economic growth can go hand in hand. ll the costs of limiting climate change harm or help the economy? One group analyzed research from around the world to assess if we can have prosperity and a healthy planet. MOUNTFORD: “The main finding is very clear. It’s come out that across all of this analysis – different countries – we can get growth and climate action together.” That’s Helen Mountford, Program Director for “The New Climate Economy” – a project of the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate – a collaboration between researchers, nonprofits, and political and business leaders. As part of the project, the commission developed ten recommendations for how to stimulate the economy while reducing emissions enough within the next 15 years to prevent catastrophic climate change. The plan calls for investing at least a trillion dollars a year in renewable energy, putting a price on carbon, and phasing out fossil fuel subsidies. MOUNTFORD: “The action plan emphasizes the importance of halting deforestation by 2030, and starting to restore some of the degraded lands worldwide.” Other recommendations include investing in energy-efficient buildings, waste management systems, and public transportation to make cities more resilient. They’re all strategies to achieve economic prosperity while protecting the climate. Read More here