From:
POLICY FORUM
'Economic Growth,Carrying Capacity,and the Environment'
by Arrow,Bolin,Costanza,Dasgupta,Folke,Holling,Jansso n,Levin,Maler,Perrings,and Pimental,
SCIENCE,VOL. 268,28 April 1995,pp.520-21
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article turns out to be a counterpoint to Julian Simon and Bjorn Lomberg's appraisal for priorities,action,inaction,and policy priorities with respect to climate change.
*The eleven economists argue that:
-GNP is far from adequate as a measure of true economic performance.
-Economic growth is not a panacea for environmental quality;indeed,it is not even the main issue.What matters is the content of growth-the composition of inputs (including environmental resources) and outputs (including waste products).
-CO2 emissions are an increasing function of per capita income.
-(T)here are many different development paths of which can de-link economic growth from CO2 emissions (you don't need fossil fuels to grow the economy)
-Economic activities are sustainable if the life-support ecosystems on which they depend are resilient.
-In fact,if this base were to be irreversibly degraded,economic activity itself could be at risk.
-The inverted U-shaped curve used by economists to relate wealth and environment is used out of context,is very conditional,and cannot,must not be used to make sweeping,general claims and predictions.
-The solution to environmental degradation would compel private users of environmental resources to take account of the social costs of their actions.
-All of this implies that there are limits to the carrying capacity of the planet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
If two heads are better than one,maybe eleven are even better?
