Search

Boulding's 1966 paper on the economics of spaceship Earth established the framework for ecological economics and an understanding of economic growth. In ecological economics, economies are conceptualized as open subsystems of the closed biosphere and are subject to biophysical laws and constraints. Economic growth measured as an increase in real gross domestic product (GDP) has generally been associated with increases in the use of energy and materials and the generation of wastes. Scale, composition, and technology are the proximate determinants of environmental impacts. They are often reduced to two: scale (GDP) and intensity (impact per unit GDP). New work described in this paper defines “green” growth as intensity that declines faster than scale increases. Similarly, “brown” growth occurs when intensity declines more slowly than increases in scale, and “black” growth happens when both scale and intensity increase. These concepts are then related to the environmental Kuznets curve, which can be understood as a transition from brown to green growth. Ecological economics provides a macroperspective on economic growth. It offers broad policy principles, and it challenges the primacy of economic growth as a policy objective, but many important questions remain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We estimated the current value of ecosystem services for terrestrial ecosystems in 47 countries in the Asia and the Pacific region. Currently, these provide $US14 trillion/yr. in benefits, most of which are non-marketed and do not show up in GDP. We also estimated the changes in terrestrial ecosystem services value for scenarios to the year 2050, built around the four Great Transition Initiative archetypes: (1) Market Forces (MF); (2) Fortress World (FW); (3) Policy Reform (PR); and (4) Great Transition (GT). Results show that under the MF and FW scenarios the ecosystem services value in the region continues to decline from $14 trillion/yr in 2011 to $11 and $9 trillion/yr in 2050, respectively. In the PR scenario, the value is maintained around $14 Trillion/yr in 2050 and in the GT scenario it is significantly restored to $17 Trillion/yr. We also show more detailed maps and results for 8 selected countries in the region (Bhutan, China, India, Philippines, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam) and compare our results with a previous national study of Bhutan. Our results indicate that adopting a set of policies like those assumed in the GT scenario would greatly enhance human wellbeing and sustainability in the region. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Natural capital is essential for goods and services on which people depend. Yet pressures on the environment mean that natural capital assets are continuing to decline and degrade, putting such benefits at risk. Systematic monitoring of natural assets is a major challenge that could be both unaffordable and unmanageable without a way to focus efforts. Here we introduce a simple approach, based on the commonly used management tool of a risk register, to highlight natural assets whose condition places benefits at risk., We undertake a preliminary assessment using a risk register for natural capital assets in the UK based solely on existing information. The status and trends of natural capital assets are assessed using asset-benefit relationships for ten kinds of benefits (food, fibre (timber), energy, aesthetics, freshwater (quality), recreation, clean air, wildlife, hazard protection and equable climate) across eight broad habitat types in the UK based on three dimensions of natural capital within each of the habitat types (quality, quantity and spatial configuration). We estimate the status and trends of benefits relative to societal targets using existing regulatory limits and policy commitments, and allocate scores of high, medium or low risk to asset-benefit relationships that are both subject to management and of concern., The risk register approach reveals substantial gaps in knowledge about asset-benefit relationships which limit the scope and rigour of the assessment (especially for marine and urban habitats). Nevertheless, we find strong indications that certain assets (in freshwater, mountain, moors and heathland habitats) are at high risk in relation to their ability to sustain certain benefits (especially freshwater, wildlife and climate regulation)., Synthesis and applications. With directed data gathering, especially to monitor trends, improve metrics related to asset-benefit relationships, and improve understanding of nonlinearities and thresholds, the natural capital risk register could provide a useful tool. If updated regularly, it could direct monitoring efforts, focus research and protect and manage those natural assets where benefits are at highest risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]