Use and Abuse of the “Natural Capital” Concept
Some people object to the concept of “natural capital” because they say it reduces nature to the status of a commodity to be marketed at its exchange value.
Some people object to the concept of “natural capital” because they say it reduces nature to the status of a commodity to be marketed at its exchange value.
If there is a theoretical pathway to a significantly smaller economy we should try to identify it.
[I]nternational media, governments and the United Nations enthusiastically welcomed a new report entitled “Better Growth, Better Climate” and trumpeted its central message around the globe: that economic growth and tackling climate change can go hand in hand….
In this talk, Nate Hagens synthesizes the current landscape of global energy, environment and financial risks while offering suggestions on what to do as a hominid living on a full planet.
Economist Paul Krugman evidently feels irked and irritated by the notion that there might be limits to economic expansion: he has followed up his New York Times op-ed with a new piece. It reveals a great deal about how economists think, and why they tend to disregard physical science when it comes to questions about finite resources and the possibility of infinite economic growth on a small planet.
The project of modernity to achieve human self-determination and freedom is a struggle against the limits imposed by nature.
What does genuine economic progress look like?
I’ve talked more than once in these essays about the challenge of discussing the fall of civilizations when the current example is picking up speed right outside the window.
The illusion of invincibility is far and away the most important asset a mature ruling elite has, because it discourages deliberate attempts at regime change from within.
…never has it been more important to embrace a collective demand for ‘system change’ as the surest way to limit global warming and ensure environmental sustainability.
In a New York Times op-ed published September 18 titled “Errors and Emissions,” economist-columnist Paul Krugman took a swipe at my organization, Post Carbon Institute, lumping us together with the Koch brothers as purveyors of “climate despair.” But not only does Krugman misrepresent our position, he himself is guilty of 5 errors and 3 omissions.
Researchers are finding that the business-as-usual scenario in the 1972 "Limits to Growth" study is unfolding before our eyes. Will reality follow that scenario further into the beginning of industrial decline this decade?