I mean, of course, other than “la la la la la I can’t hear you la la la la la”. This article about Arne Naess, a philisophical forefather of so-called “deep” ecology, got me thinking about this question. Dot Earth, an NYT blog, has reactions to his work from a number of environmentalists and ethicists, but not economists.
One of the commentators, David Orton, says,
Naess defined the shallow ecology movement, which he says is more influential than the deep ecology movement, as “Fight against pollution and resource depletion. Central objective: the health and affluence of people in the developed countries.” The shallow approach takes for granted beliefs in technological optimism, economic growth, and scientific management and the continuation of existing industrial societies. Naess expressed it this way: “The supporters of shallow ecology think that reforming human relations toward nature can be done within the existing structure of society.”
That’s a tough pill to swallow. Even “shallow” approaches seem like a giant step forward from the status quo. Most economic discussion of the environment, and ecology, begins and ends with externalities. It relies on putting a price on every natural resource, ecosystem, etc. University of Chicago is holding a conference this May that will approach the issues of ecosystem service valuation.
My problems with the shallow approach veer more towards the practical side, but they hit on the same issues that the deep green folks are worried about. Can we accurately value the services that ecosystems provide? Will the discount rate, set far too high for accounting and “economic” reasons, lead to overconsumption and destruction of these resources? Finally, will this valuation process ever consider a concept like intrinsic value?
A lot of my frustration with the approach of economists to the environment ultimately stems from my experience in environmental economics. The professor, who will remain nameless, mocked the deep green people four or five times throughout the semester. “Some people at these conferences say, ‘you can’t put a dollar value on these things.’ I say, ‘we can measure it in pesos, apples, whatever, but these things have some value.'” Obviously this misses the point they are making. It’s not that these things are priceless, it’s just that you, the methodologically constrained economists, cannot accurately value this.
After seeing how he actually does value things like rainforests, I agree with the deep folks. This professor is fond of revealed preference models, where you use surveys (of ND students, no less) to figure out what they value the rainforest as. If they aren’t willing to pay more than a logger to keep that rainforest around, start your chainsaws. I think the shortcomings of this method are pretty obvious, so I won’t belabor the point. My main point, though, is that economics is not the end all be all, and does not have all the answers. Deep ecology seems to be light years ahead of environmental economics in terms of its guidance for our present situation.
Great post Nick.
I agree with everything you said.
Part of what is at stake here is the anthropocentrism.
Which is so ingrained in economics, and pretty much everything. Deep ecology is radical because it rejects it. Can we glean parts of deep ecology while keeping anthropocentrism?
I think so, and one way of looking at deep ecology is that it wants humanity to live in harmony with nature (which they think will also be the best for the humans that do so).
Aldo Leopold, one of the first deep ecologists, who gave the idea of protecting nature for nature’s sake recognition, called for a “land ethic” and urged wilderness protection.
There are two opposing factions that had emerged within the environmental movement by the early 20th century: the conservationists and the preservationists (like Leopold). Environmental economics may be able to be reconciled with the conservation philosophy, the wise use of natural resources to benefit the greatest numbers of people, for the longest time (note, the utilitarian -greatest good for PEOPLE- framework, which is shared by N-C economics). It is pragmatic, it seeks the measurable.
Leopold came to the conclusion that the problem we face is the extension of the social conscience from people to land. He believed that we needed to think of conserving the land (preserving its integrity) something ethical.
Look up his “land ethic” if you want to see exactly how far this deep ecology is from antropocentrism.
While I am sympathetic to the deep ecology movement, I think it still has enormous problems. Shedding anthropocentrism does not necessarily escape utilitarian logic–it merely shifts (or broadens) its focus. Also, the concept of “harmony” is nothing intrinsic or essential, and may therefore still fall into the same anthropocentric theorizing (who decides what the “balance” is? Humans?). “Natural” rhetoric is by no measure neutral, and I’m still skeptical of any attempt to posit a “natural” human relationship to the environment.
I think the benefit of something like the “land ethic” is that on a practical level, it becomes much harder for economists to confirm or quanitfy conditions of utility maximization. I suppose, at a philosophical level, there are still shortcomings here, but the approach of deep ecology sort of forces the quants to curl up into a ball and admit defeat, should they admit that anthropocentrism is lacking. Of course, that is as likely as (insert “unlikely cliche”).
If you read some of Arne Naess, you realize he’s much more of a philosopher and while he may not have all the answers, his fundamental disposition is one of openness and seeking to be a life-long learner. Its this stance and approach towards economics and relationship with the environment that I think is so radical and healthy and completely necessary in economics.
I’m reading Ecology of Wisdom right now, which is about Arne’s life and writings, and finding his holistic approach to living and thinking very refreshing.
Ecological economics provides an openness and a preliminary framework to begin to think about how these different anthropocentric and nonanthrpocentric (conservationist and preservationist) differences can play out in economics. However, ecological economics is still very young and needs a lot more people to get into it for it to take off.
But back to Nick’s original point in this post: economists need new ways to think about and value the environment. The current methods and means of ecosystem and environmental valuation are extremely limited and in the process destructive in the ways they allow you to think about nature. The problem of how to think about climate change and the potential goods or bads that it may bring about and our ability to adapt or evolve still is at the heart of the domestic and international climate policy debates.
Though mainstream economists have tried to do a comprehensive cost benefit analysis of the world’s ecosystems, these studies haven’t really advanced our world’s understanding of what to do. However, they have contributed to people’s increased consciousness of the grave situation we’re in.
In all of this I guess I’m trying to figure out how to use economics to move global and domestic climate policy negotiations forward in a constructive way. Mainstream methods are being used by many organizations urging change because they are easily understood and can produce quantifiable results that mesh well with today’s current economic metrics. For example, I’m thinking of the Stern Review that quantified the costs of inaction on climate change in terms of GDP. And since it was in mainstream terms, the study provided many (including energy experts at my research firm, CERA, and NCL environmental think tanks like RFF) with something to discuss and debate.
While I think there is so much that non-mainstream schools of thought have to offer climate policy debates, its hard for me to find thinking and writing that does this well and that achieves high-enough stature to substantially influence some of the major thinking that drives major negotiations or business planning. Does anybody have any good examples for me?
I think there are certain venues that foster good criticism and pluralistic thinking (Real World Economics Review, The Breakthrough Institute, Hello Cool World) but I’m still searching and trying to imagine a way that our world (mainstream economics, the publicly-owned corporation) can change enough to the more just and sustainable society that we all aspire to living in.
I think this blog is advancing my thinking on all of this in many very positive ways so I appreciate all of your continued contributions.
I guess the problem is that the policy debates are number-centric, and in the face of that, what can deep ecology have to add? They can say, okay, whatever number you come up with for the discount rate, it should obviously be lower, or whatever your carbon tax is, it should be higher. The policy process lends itself to NCL, though.