A couple of years ago, it ran a story:
World and Press - September 1 2017 - World and Press Archiv - Englisch
Which looked at 'putting a value' on nature:
World and Press - September 1 2017 - World and Press Archiv - Englisch
Which looked at 'putting a value' on nature:
The Guardian view on pricing the Great Barrier Reef: a dangerous absurdity | Great Barrier Reef | The Guardian
Here's a definition of this which shows that it doesn't have to be feared:
Here's a definition of this which shows that it doesn't have to be feared:
And today it's quite a thing:
It's very much in the news - and everywhere:
And it's having quite an impact on current debates around the economy:
For example:
But what if setting growth free from CO2 emissions will just take more time, and more technology — bigger batteries, for example, and cheaper solar panels? Cameron Hepburn, a professor of environmental economics at the University of Oxford, points out that there have been many instances in history where society has replaced a heavily polluting technology with a more efficient, cleaner technology — shifting from, say, kerosene lamps to incandescent lights to LED bulbs — without sacrificing growth. Why should the quest for fossil fuel-free energy be any different? “The thing I object to most is the idea that, just because it hasn’t been done yet, it can’t be done,” Hepburn said. He points out that degrowth hasn’t been tried, either — and so the hypothetical choice for governments is between two relatively unproven pathways.
Post-COVID, should countries rethink their obsession with economic growth? | Grist
And 'environmental economists' are everywhere:
.
.
.
.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment