A Most Interesting Question

Title of a journal article in Ecological Economics, Volume 185, to be published in July, 2021:

"Beyond ecosystem services and nature's contributions: Is it time to leave utilitarian environmentalism behind?".

From the "Highlights" of the article (preceding the Abstract)---

"We plead for a paradigm shift, away from utilitarian, anthropocentric and dualistic conceptions of human-nature relations."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800921000963

As Homo sapiens attempts to move toward sustainability and all things "Green", it seems to me that we're still missing an important underpinning to the success of those efforts.  It's known as ecocentrism.

In the dozens of articles on the circular economy, the doughnut/donut economy, etc. which I've read, the ideology of anthropocentrism appears to prevail.  Is that, as Lynn White proposed decades ago, due to the Judeo-Christian worldview of the Nature-Human relationship (which sees humanity both superior to and separate from Nature)?  Perhaps, but I really don't know.

In any case and in general, humans do seem to be filled with hubris... especially regarding nonhuman life.  That's a problem when we profess to be "going Green".  In my view, there will be no successful sustainability without the adoption of ecoethics on a massive scale.  Ecoethics will not be the prevailing philosophical standard without a paradigm shift in our view of the natural world.  In the meantime, our efforts toward sustainability - though laudable and a good first step - still amount to tinkering around the edges of the socio-eco-econ-ethical Crisis.

Nonhuman life has intrinsic value, not just utilitarian value.  The Earth is not here for us to "subdue" (from the Book of Genesis in the Bible).  The spark of life in all beings is the spirit of Universal Consciousness.  

As Barry Commoner stated in 1971 (in his book, The Closing Circle):  "Everything is connected to everything else".  We humans are not separate from Nature; we are Nature.  We don't "come into the world" when we're born.  We come from it.  All beings are Universal Consciousness expressing Itself.

Without the above worldview, I don't see how we can live in harmony with Nature, or have any significant degree of sustainability.

Not only my opinion.  Be Well 

From Transnational Institute: Commentary on Public Banks and "Green" Funding

 https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/24844/1/How%20Public%20Banks%20Can%20Help%20Finance%20a%20Green%20and%20Just%20Energy%20Transformation_Marois_TNI_2017.pdf

As examples, two banks are discussed:  Germany's KfW; and Costa Rica's BPDC.  The report is both interesting and informative; it covers the good side of the issue and the shortcomings.  At least read the "Conclusion...", starting on page 12.

Green projects, like everything else, have to be funded.  Public banks should be involved because, in general, they're more accountable than the private banks.  Plus, public banks are much more democratic, and again in general, more concerned with the public good.

..............................

Not only my opinion.  Be Well

"The economy as if people mattered..." 2020

The open access articles at the links below are enlightening and much needed admonitions regarding the current misuse of "Green" terminology (circular, bioeconomics, Green New Deal, etc.), and the ethical problems inherent in the "Growth" (neoliberal) economy.  Neoliberal economics is attempting to paint itself green, thus supposedly justifying the continuation on the path of unlimited growth.

 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14747731.2020.1761612#aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudGFuZGZvbmxpbmUuY29tL2RvaS9wZGYvMTAuMTA4MC8xNDc0NzczMS4yMDIwLjE3NjE2MTI/bmVlZEFjY2Vzcz10cnVlQEBAMA==

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800918317178?via%3Dihub

..............................

It is abundantly clear by now that mainstream/neoliberal economics, more than any other relevant factor, is responsible for the disasters of:  the multi-faceted ecological crisis; rampant social & income inequality; an egregiously fragile economy; and a race to worldwide neofeudalism.  In addition to all that, neoliberals currently would have us believe:  the solution to all our problems is more & more efficient growth; and, with recycling, we don't need to worry about running out of natural resources.  Really?  No worries?

The above scenario is not the Bioeconomics of Georgescu-Roegen.  Not even close.  He emphasized biophysical limits, entropy, and finally, degrowth.  [Ever-changing "development" doesn't have to be "growth".]

..............................

Not only my opinion.  Stay Well

The Circular Economy: A Few Implementation Methods

 Although I firmly believe Circular Economics does not go far enough in dealing with our ongoing Ecological Crisis - not far enough mainly because the "circular economy" approach still is wedded to unlimited growth - I nevertheless recognize the approach as a step in the right direction.  In that spirit, the links below may provide a valuable insight or two for researchers, policy makers and others.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/circular-economy  [An overview, and specific implementation methods.]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800918306414   ["Circular, Green, and Bio Economy: How Do Companies in Land-Use Intensive Sectors Align with Sustainability Concepts?"]

.................................

Not only my opinion.  Be Well