Contents:
Radon, the odorless gas that naturally seeps up from the ground and is found in people’s homes, causes as many as 20,000 lung cancer deaths per year, while hazardous waste dumps cause at most 500 cancer deaths. Yet the Environmental Protection Agency spends over $6 billion a year to clean up hazardous waste sites while its spends only $100 million a year for radon protection. To test a home for radon costs about $25, and to clean it up if it is found contaminated costs $1,000.
Environmental and ecological economics are both sub-fields of economic thought that study the interactions between human activity and the natural environment. The difference is that environmental economics studies the relationship between the environment and the economy, while ecological economics considers the economy to be a subsystem of the wider ecosystem. EE was created to foster a socially and ecologically grounded paradigm (i.e. model/thought pattern) shift in economic thinking.
Aims to ascertain the optimal price of resource, as well as to mitigate, prevent, and mediate the externalities that come with the use of the environment and natural resource. Specifically, environmental economics employs a variety of mainstream neoclassical economic tools and policies to ensure that the environment and natural resources are used in a market efficient manner. As the concept of pricing lies at the heart of environmental economics, valuation of environmental costs and benefits, through direct valuation, contingent valuation or hedonistic price approaches, is an important feature of the former. Touted as a solution and reaction against the deteriorating environment and depleting natural resources, environmental economics has been criticized at more fundamental levels.
More often than not, findings from environmental economists can result in controversy, and their policy prescriptions may be difficult to implement due to the complexity of the world market. A major subject of environmental economics is externalities, the additional costs of doing business that are not paid by the business or its consumers. Economics, broadly speaking, is the study of how humans produce and consume goods and services. Environmental economics focuses on how they use and manage finite resources in a manner that serves the population while meeting concerns about environmental impact. Another concept is energy sufficiency which informs how wellbeing can be achieved by meeting peoples basic needs for energy services equitably and within planetary boundaries. Energy sufficiency proposes a maximum level of energy consumption that is ecologically sustainable combined with distributional justice to ensure everyone has fair access to energy to meet their needs for wellbeing.
Whether we talk about economics, the environment, education, healthcare, law, or management, we are dealing with living organisms, social systems, or ecosystems. And consequently, the fundamental shift of perception from the mechanistic to the systemic view of life is relevant to all these areas. At any one point in time, the cost of pollution control or resource recovery depends on the current state of technology and knowledge. For example, the cost of reducing carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels depends in part on how expensive solar and wind power are, and the cost of wetland restoration depends on how quickly ecologists are able to get new wetland plants to be established. Everyone in society benefits if those technologies improve and the marginal cost of any given level of environmental stewardship declines. Thus, economists think a lot about which kinds of policies do the best job of giving people incentives to develop cheaper ways to clean and steward the environment.
Viewed through an inverse lens, all these ideas are important for benefit estimation as well. The Coase Theorem states that assigning property rights will lead to an optimal solution, regardless of who receives them, if transaction costs are trivial and the number of parties negotiating is limited. For example, if people living near a factory had a right to clean air and water, or the factory had the right to pollute, then either the factory could pay those affected by the pollution or the people could pay the factory not to pollute. Or, citizens could take action themselves as they would if other property rights were violated.
Even non-renewable resources such as oil would be used efficiently by a well-functioning market. It is socially efficient to use a non-renewable resource over time such that the price rises at the same rate as the rate of interest. Increasing scarcity pushes the price up, which stimulates efforts to use less of the resource and to invest in research to make “backstop” alternatives more cost-effective. Eventually, the cost of the resource rises to the point where the backstop technology is competitive, and the market switches from the non-renewable resource to the backstop. We see this with copper; high prices of non-renewable copper trigger substitution to other materials, like fiber optics for telephone cables and plastics for pipes. We would surely see the same thing happen with fossil fuels; if prices are allowed to rise with scarcity, firms have more incentives to engage in research that lowers the cost of backstop technologies like solar and wind power, and we will eventually just switch.
What Is the Relationship Between Neoclassical Economics and Environmental Economics?
It can be particularly difficult to estimate the benefits of environmental policy, and benefit estimates are necessary for finding efficient policies. However, we can still evaluate whether a policy will be cost effective and achieve its goal in the least expensive way possible. If one source had a high marginal cost and another’s marginal cost was very low, total cost could be reduced by switching some of the cleanup from the first source to the second.
As an emerging transdiscipline, ecological economics has an exceptionally broad scope of inquiry, and has not yet achieved the level of consensus that characterizes an established science. This overview leaves out much brilliant work, and not all ecological economists will agree with all it says. We live in a world of uncertainty, rich in potential for disaster and at the same time for positive possibilities. We have to realize that we never will find solutions to our current challenges using the old maps, to do more than reducing negative symptoms we have to change our worldview. As indicated by Johnson if something new and better is to be enjoyed, something old and less valuable must be discarded” (p. 1). We argue that the only valid purpose of the economy is to serve the life processes in all kinds of social and ecological systems.
For example, an environmental economist could identify overfishing as a negative externality to be addressed. The two pillars for understanding energy and what we can do with it are the quantity of exergy or anergy , and the quality of energy as determined by the difficulty in obtaining energy, energy density, and physical and social difficulties of access. The difference in quantity and quality means that not all energy can enable us to do the same work, which has deep consequences for the useful work that we can do with either renewable and non-renewable energy sources.
Unfortunately, many conditions can lead tomarket failuresuch that the market outcome does not maximize social welfare. The extent to which net benefits fall short of their potential is calleddeadweight loss. Deadweight loss can exist when not enough of a good is produced, or too much of a good is produced, or production is not done in the most cost-effective way possible, where costs include environmental damages.
A pollution tax that reduces pollution to the socially “optimal” level would be set at such a level that pollution occurs only if the benefits to society exceeds the costs. This concept was introduced by Arthur Pigou, a British economist active in the late nineteenth through the mid-twentieth https://1investing.in/ century. He showed that these externalities occur when markets fail, meaning they do not naturally produce the socially optimal amount of a good or service. Some advocate a major shift from taxation from income and sales taxes to tax on pollution – the so-called “green tax shift”.
How the Tools of Impact Investing Can Undermine Resilience in the Global South
The assessment of appropriate damages, fines, or both in such cases often depends on the careful valuation of aspects of the environment. That would, in effect, undervalue environmental goods and could possibly lead policy makers to believe that certain environmental regulations are not worth the costs they impose on society when, in fact, they are. Environmental goods are aspects of the natural environment that hold value for individuals in society. Just as consumers value a jar of peanut butter or a can of soup, consumers of environmental goods value clean air, clean water, healthy ecosystems, and even peace and quiet.
- Just as in the decision-making process of individual land owners, incentives are important in the government decision-making process.
- After having an idea of what a sustainable scale for an economy can be, we can know what resources we have to distribute justly among the population without undermining the rest of nature.
- EE implicitly adopts Polanyi’s substantive definition of economics as how humans interact with society and nature to provide for their material needs.
- Hardin theorizes that in the absence of restrictions, users of an open-access resource will use it more than if they had to pay for it and had exclusive rights, leading to environmental degradation.
- However, oil companies consider their cost of producing gasoline to include only their exploration and production costs.
- The EROI needs to provide a positive ratio of energy returned to society from the energy invested to have enough energy surplus for reinvestment in obtaining more energy without compromising society’s ability to meet its basic needs.
Cost accountability will be most prevalent when property rights to land and resources are clearly defined. Clear property rights make the owners of a resource responsible, in most countries, for the way that resource is used and for the harms it may cause others. An owner’s right to the use of property does not include the right to use it in ways that impose a cost on others. In such cases, courts have historically held owners of a polluting plant or business responsible for harm they may cause other parties. Clear property rights make owners face the cost of inefficient use of a resource and thus encourage owners to ensure that their property or equipment is put to the most highly valued use. Property rights provide what economists consider the incentives to ensure that resources are used efficiently and in a way that constrains negative impacts on other individuals.
In order for these two metabolisms to remain healthy, great care must be taken to keep them distinct and separate, so that they do not contaminate each another. Things that are part of the biological metabolism – agricultural products, clothing, cosmetics, etc. – should not contain persistent toxic substances. Things that go into the technical metabolism – machines, physical structures, etc. – should be kept well apart from the biological metabolism.
Theory and Principles For a Just Sustainability Transition to a Right-Sized Economy
Ecological economics tries to study everything outside the market as well as everything inside the market and bring the two together. Robert Costanza is one of the founders of a trans-disciplinary effort to understand how economics is embedded in the broader ecosystem that supports all human activity. From this perspective, he sees both limits for economic growth and opportunities to improve long-term human well- being. environmental economics definition In urban, regional, real estate, public, environmental economics, and industrial organization, there is usually dependency across spatial units, and spatial models have been used to capture this dependency. This is an area in which environmental economics may learn from development economics’ experience. The most popular courses taken are in environmental history, environmental economics and environmental ethics.
In contrast, most standard microeconomics textbooks argue that through specialization and trade, society can “increase production with no change in resources” (Parkin 2003, p. 42). At the level of micro-economics, the view of the economy as a nested system means that it is inappropriate to talk about a single business as being sustainable, because all businesses are embedded in social and ecological networks. Change and development, including the movement toward sustainability, depend on building and rebuilding relations between all available entities, i.e. human and natural resources. Our approach to ecological economics exceeds the traditional definition in that we explicitly are using two meanings of the term “ecological”. In the strict scientific sense, ecology is the science of relationships between the members of an ecological community and their environment.
Environmental economics
This field takes as its premise that economics is a strict subfield of ecology. Ecological economics is sometimes described as taking a more pluralistic approach to environmental problems and focuses more explicitly on long-term environmental sustainability and issues of scale. Humans depend not only on raw materials provided by nature, but like all other species on the planet, are sustained by the solar-powered life support functions of healthy ecosystems. All of human technology simply cannot provide the climate stability, waste absorption capacity, water regulation, and other essentials that more than 6 billion people require to survive.
Resources
Prices have fallen because of discoveries of new resources and because of innovations in the extraction and refinement process. Economists have encountered logical and conceptual hurdles, moreover, in their efforts to develop scientific methods for valuing environmental assets and thus for second-guessing market outcomes. First, there is little evidence that economic experts are able to assemble information about WTP and WTA any better than market players when the costs of gathering that information are high. Second, economic estimates of benefits and costs when made by government agencies become objects of lobbying, litigation, and criticism. Experts can be hired on both sides of any dispute and then produce dueling cost-benefit analyses .