"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 Idea is Simple & Straightforward - The Implementation of it is Monumentally Complex

 Which "Idea"?  Because unlimited growth and overconsumption on finite Spaceship Earth have proven to be incompatible with the long-term surviving and thriving of Life here, we need to make a paradigm shift to Sustainability.

The four journal articles at the links below show part of the reason why that necessary shift cannot be done in one fell swoop.  

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

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800919316982

["Sustainable Development and Populism"  2020

From the Abstract:  This paper contains the first empirical study of the relationship between the SDGs (17 U.N. Sustainable Development Goals) and populism.]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652619316191?dgcid=raven_sd_recommender_email  

["Thinking green, circular, or bio: ...researchers' perspectives on a sustainable economy..."  2019]

From the Abstract:  This study aims at highlighting combinations of sustainability concepts (circular, green, and bioeconomy) which selected researchers have considered priorities...]

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/20/5705/htm

["Bioeconomy Transitions through the Lens of Coupled Social-Ecological Systems..."  2019

From the Abstract:  ...it remains unclear whether bioeconomy transitions in high income countries are sustainable.  In order to fill a gap in bioeconomy sustainability assessments, we apply...]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652617330706

["Circular economy as an essentially contested concept"  2018

From the Abstract:  ...basic assumptions concerning the values, societal structures, cultures, underlying world-views, and the paradigmatic potential of CE remain largely unexplored.]

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

Although time is pressing, implementation of Sustainability will not happen only by "voting", and will require years of persistent work (which has been & is ongoing).  I mention this obvious truism because:  I've noticed in many venues both online and off that some younger activists seem to be getting extremely impatient AND depressed to one degree or another with what they perceive as a lack of progress in the shift to a sustainable path.  Take heart.  Work and progress are happening all around the world.  Yes, we (as aggregate humanity) need a giant step forward relatively quickly.  I think we're on the cusp of it, so hang in there.

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

Not only my opinion.  Be Well

"...Promising the radical, delivering the familiar"

A sneak peek at an upcoming November journal article - all I have is the Abstract, which is telling (link below).  It's looking more & more as though the CIRCULAR ECONOMY (CE) concept is not what it's cracked up to be.  At least, at the present time it's not.

So, why is that important?  1)  CE currently is highly popular in academic and governmental policy making circles.  2)  It's being viewed as an ecological solution to the ongoing Eco-Crisis.  3)  It appears to adhere to the neoclassical/neoliberal false belief that increased efficiency and substitutes can ameliorate the negative environmental "externalities" of unlimited economic growth.  4)  It also appears to ignore the impact of entropy regarding economic throughput and recycling.  5)  And finally, it appears to not take seriously enough the existence of biophysical limitations on Spaceship Earth.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921800920306091

The CE paradigm is in need of a transformative shift which includes abandoning the idea of unlimited growth and overconsumption on a finite planet.  That path has proven to be disastrous.  It's precisely why the world now is seeking an alternative.  Wrapping a Green ribbon around a neoliberal package is not an adequate solution.  The CE model is not Bioeconomics, Ecological Economics, Donut Economics, or Steady State Economics.  It seems to be merely a greener version of neoliberal economics.

In any case, much more dialectical discourse regarding the details of CE needs to occur.  Our lives, our future depend on that process.

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

Not only my opinion.  Be Well

Validity Challenges: The Circular Economy Concept

Here's the question:  is the current version of the Circular Economy (CE) genuinely transformational, or merely refurbished and presented as CE 3.0?  More to the point:  does it seriously consider socio-ecological problems involving biophysical limitations in the economic sphere?

The answers are not clear at this point, but the articles at the links below examine the questions in great detail.  CE is not yet crystallized, and could go in any one of a few different directions.  More research and dialectical discourse are needed in order to give the concept a final grounding and direction.

 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344920302354?dgcid=raven_sd_recommender_email#bib0192

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344917302756

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

Not only my opinion.  Stay Well

More on Ecosystem Services... Plus, More on Ecosystems

 http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/EcosystemAssessmentConcepts/EcosystemServices/tabid/103/Default.aspx

At the link above is a concise and comprehensive rendering of the important concept of ecosystem services.

On the left side of the page are more links to all aspects of ecosystems, e.g., ecosystems & biodiversity, ecosystem functioning, etc.

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

Be Well

Georgescu-Roegen's Bioeconomics Approach to Development and Change

Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen (G-R), a highly skilled mathematician, epistemologist, & economist, was one of the thinkers who laid the bedrock for anything "Green" in economics.  He did so with his concept of Bioeconomics.

G-R spent much of his career at Vanderbilt University in Nashville.  His best known book, The Entropy Law and the Economic Process (1971), dealt not only with the two subjects in the title, but also science & thought, dialectics, epistemology, mathematical analysis, change/evolution, and society.  It's truly a "magnum opus".

Because the book detailed the problems and dangers of unlimited economic growth, it drew negative reactions from neoclassical/neoliberal economists.  After that, the work largely was ignored by mainstream economics.

G-R's Bioeconomics was/is genuinely revolutionary, and it's making a bigtime comeback.  In large part, that's due to the failures/problems of mainstream economics.  The two primary foundations of G-R's theory are as follows.
1. Human evolution, in addition to being within the body (endosomatic), has been outside the body (exosomatic) in the form of tools, machinery, industry, and external energy (e.g., fossil fuels).  Not only exosomatic manufactured components have become part of our evolution, but money as well.
2.  The recognition of the importance of qualitative change caused by new elements in economic processes is crucial to understanding economic reality.  [The mechanistic epistemology of neoclassical/neoliberal economics largely fails to account for such change because primarily (often only) mathematical analysis is used in constructing economic models.  Math formulas dominate.  G-R proposed a combination of math and a dialectical approach (involving discourse, discussion, & reasoned argumentation) in order to determine economic reality.]

In simpler terms, G-R maintained that neoclassical/neoliberal economics could not account for the unanticipated, unknown variables (e.g., the effects of industrial pollutants, social & income inequality, overharvesting of natural resources, and a plethora of anomalies in human behavior) in an economy because only math is used in economic analysis and prediction.  Dialectical reasoning - discussion of opposing views - is needed.  Input of words, not just math formulas.

In relation to development and change, G-R antagonized the mainstreamers by his insistence that economic analysis must be based on reality, observed facts, rather than mathematical abstractions.  He maintained that the neoclassical approach primarily consisted of nothing but conjecture.

For a much deeper look, see the article at the link below.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2009.01603.x

The economic genius of Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen finally is being recognized.
...................................
Not only my opinion.  Stay Well

The "Green Economy" CANNOT Sustain Unlimited Economic Growth

Even for a moment, I shudder to think of the indoctrination going on in the world today relative to how the theoretical Green Economy (GEcon) will facilitate the continuation of perpetual economic GROWTH.  Is the GEcon a good thing for us?  Yes, it is.  Is continuing unlimited growth a good thing for us?  Absolutely not.  We can have one or the other, but not both.  Here's why.
...................................

The journal article at the link below tackles the nexus of the GEcon and perpetual growth, and it does so with both qualitative and quantitative empirical evidence.  It not only analyzes all the factors involved, but applies synthesis to them as well.  Those factors include:  Gross Domestic Product (GDP), Domestic Material Consumption (DMC), decoupling, re-coupling, material & energy throughput, green growth, theoretical Tech innovation, global material footprint, unlimited economic growth, bioenergy with carbon capture & storage (BECCS), the IPAT equation, Eco-Crisis, ecology, natural resources, political ecology, and more.

The title and first paragraph of this essay give a partial hint, but I won't reveal the full conclusion of the linked article here because it's important (and worthwhile) to read the piece.  So, put on your thinking cap, buckle down, study it, and I believe you'll become a convert, so to speak.  This subject might seem boring to the "average" person, but just the fact that you're reading this means you're above average relative to concern over the ongoing Eco-Crisis.  So many solution options to consider - GEcon, Circular Econ, Bioecon, Steady State Econ, Ecological Econ, and various combinations of those.  If organized human existence is to survive and thrive, we have to get this right.  The article below will help tremendously.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13563467.2019.1598964?src=recsys  ["Is Green Growth Possible", by Jason Hickel and Giorgos Kallis]
It's a "Free Access" journal article.

Given the years-long search for Sustainability (especially in the EU), the above article is crucial to deciding on the best path forward for humanity.
...............................
Not only my opinion.  Be Well