I attended a ‘symposium’ today on Biophysical Limits and their Policy Implications. While fascinating, it was somewhat depressing.
Hosted by the soon to be defunct Institute of Policy Studies at Victoria University, the purpose of the event was to explore the burgeoning scientific literature on the planet’s biophysical limits and consider the policy implications arising from this literature.
To put this in context, the byline to the symposium goes something like this:
Economic growth has been a key objective of most governments over much of the period since the rise of modern democratic states. But is continuing growth possible in a finite world? SInce the publication of Limits to Growth by ‘The Club of Rome‘ in 1972, there has been a lively debate about the extent to which there are planetary limits to economic growth, or at least growth of certain kinds. The debate has been invigorated in recent years, not least as a result of concerns over human-induced climate change, the poor management of the globe’s freshwater and marine resources, the loss of agricultural land and population growth.
So, what exactly did I learn?
The OECD recently (25 May 2011) released a report called Towards Green Growth. Based on some notes I scribbled down I think it mentioned ecosystem services (ie. the benefits we get from nature) and boundaries (ie. limits to growth). While that sounds good, it was pointed out that the OECD still has a focus on economic growth.
I mean, come on OECD, economic growth was so 90′s.
The recently released Stockholm Memorandum (18 May 2011) mentions two salient points:
- progress as a dominant species has come at a high price
- science shows we’re transgressing earth’s boundaries: tipping point!
It’s succinct and worth a read. Some great points are made, but whether the governments of the world take any notice of it is the real crux of the issue.
The big questions for the day, helped set the scene.
What are safe biophysical limits?
- National/local limits?
- Factoring in risk/uncertainty?
Implications for Global economic growth – exponential growth?
- Under what conditions?
- Taxing negative externalities?
Replacing Natural Capital – with what?
- How do we protect Natural Capital?
Institutional arrangements fit for purpose?
- Global goals?
- Means to achieve them?
Research priorities?
Where to from here? Wait till my next installment….
Tags: Biophysical Limits, Limits to Growth, OECD, Stockholm Memorandum
June 9, 2011 at 10:46 am |
Capitalism is a hungry monster! Shareholder owned companies will never make enough money – so will never settle for anything that could limit profits.
That is all!
June 9, 2011 at 8:05 pm |
True that many fat cat corporates won’t want to do anything to limit profits, however there is definite room for shareholdings to be spread further a field. People working for a company they have a holding in tend to take more interest in it. The problem is the eternal quest for growth, and the money system relying on loans and interest to fuel that growth. Bring back Social Credit.