THIS POST IS A CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE CLIMATE CHANGE ISSUE AS DESCRIBED IN A GRANTHAM INSTITUTE EVENT POSTED IN AN ONLINE VIDEO. THE TOPIC HERE CONNECTS ECONOMICS AND CLIMATE CHANGE WITH THE TITLE

“FAIRY TALES OF ECONOMIC GROWTH, RE-IMAGINING A SUSTAINABLE ECONOMY ON A CHANGING PLANET”.

ABSTRACT:

THE PRESENTATION BY THE GRANTHAM INSTITUTE MAKES THE CASE THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE AND THAT OUR UNDERSTANDING OF FINANCE AND ECONOMICS IS INCOMPLETE AND DANGEROUSLY FLAWED WHEN ECONOMICS IS UNDERSTOOD IN THE ABSENCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS.

THIS ARGUMENT IMPLIES THAT CAPITALISM AS PRACTICED IS A DANGEROUS TOOL THAT IS SHORT TERM AND WITH ASSUMPTIONS THAT EXCLUDE NATURE. THE POINT OF THIS PRESENTATION IN THE CLIMATE CHANGE CONTEXT IS THE IMPLICATION THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS A CREATIION OF CAPITALISM AND THAT THESE KINDS OF THINGS WILL CONTINUE TO HAPPEN IF WE DON’T FIX OUR ECONOMICS SYSTEM AND THAT WE CAN AND MUST FIX OUR ECONOMICS SYSTEM WITH AN ECO WACKO AGENDA INSERTED INTO ECONOMICS AND FINANCE TO INCLUDE NATURE AND THE PLANET BECAUSE WE ARE PART OF NATURE. THESE CHANGES TO OUR ECONOMICS SYSTEM ARE NEEDED SO THAT WE DON’T END UP DESTROYING THE PLANET.

YET WHAT WE SEE TODAY IS THAT EVEN AFTER MORE THAN 400 YEARS OF CAPITALISM AND MORE THAN A CENTURY OF CLASSICAL ECONOMICS WHAT WE FIND IN THE WORLD TODAY IS THAT THE HIGHEST QUALITY OF LIFE ON THE PLANET, LONELINESS OR NO, IS FOUND IN THESE SOCIETIES.

AS FOR THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE POPULATION, WEALTH, POWER, AND REACH OF HUMANS ON THIS PLANET IS NOW SO GREAT THAT THE PLANET HAS REACHED A NEW STATE CALLED THE ANTHROPOCENE WHERE THE WORLD’S NATURAL SYSTEMS ARE AT RISK OF BEING OVERWHELMED AND DESTROYED BY THE ENORMOUS REACH AND POWER OF THE HUMANS THAT NOW CONTOL PLANET, WE NOTE IN A RELATE POST THAT THIS HUMAN CONTROLLED STATE OF THE PLANET IS AN IMPOSSIBILITY.

LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/03/30/the-humans-must-save-the-planet/

PART-1: A TRANSCRIPT OF THE VIDEO

OUR SPEAKER TODAY IS JOYCE MSUYA, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE UNITED NATIONS AND DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAM. MS SUYA IS A MICROBIOLOGIST WHO BEGAN HER CAREER AT THE WORLD BANK IN 1998 AS A PUBLIC HEALTH SPECIALIST FOR AFRICA. AND SO NOW HAS MORE THAN 20 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT OPERATIONS, STRATEGY, KNOWLEDGE, AND MANAGEMENT FOR AFRICA ASIA AND LATIN AMERICA. SHE ALSO SERVED AS THE WORLD BANK GROUP INSTITUTE FOR EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC REGION COORDINATER IN CHINA , PRINCIPAL “FRACSI?” OFFICER FOR THE INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION AND SPECIAL ADVISER TO LORD NICHOLAS STERN, WORLD BANK SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF ECONOMIST. FROM NOVEMEBER 2018 AND JUNE 2019, SHE SERVED AS INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AT THE UN ENVIRONMENT PROGRAM OVERSEEING THE UNEP PORTFOLIO IN 33 COUNTRIES AND OVERSEE IN NINE MULTILATERAL ENVIRONMENTAL AGREEMENTS ON CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES. THE UNIVERSITY OF {FAT FLIES?}, WHERE SHE WAS AN UNDERGRADUATE, NAMED HER THE ALUMNUS OF HE YEAR FOR 2019. SHE WILL SPEAK FOR 20 MINUTES AFTER WHICH WE WILL OPEN THE FLOOR FOR QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE.

LECTURE BY JOYCE MSUYA

{FAIRY TAKES OF ECONOMIC GROWTH, RE-IMAGINING A SUSTAINIABLE ECONOMY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH BEN. I AM VERY DELIGHTED TO BE SPEAKING TO YOU ALL. LET ME START BY THANKING BEN FOR MODERATING THIS SESSION BUT ALSO MY DEEPEST THANKS TO PROFESSOR MARTIN SIEGERT DIRECTOR OF OF GRANTHAM INSTITUTE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE ENVIRONMENT. I AM DELIGHTED TO BE HERE TO TALK ABOUT A TOPIC THAT IS SO CLOSE TO MY HEART.

EARLY IN MY CAREER I HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF WORKING WITH LORD NICHOLAS STERN WHEN HE WAS THE CHIEF ECONOMIST OF THE WORLD BANK GROUP. EVER SINCE THEN, ECONOMICS HAS BEEN A SUBJECT THAT HAS SHAPED HOW I SEE THE WORLD EVEN THOUGH I WAS TRAINED AS A MICRO BIOLOGIST. BUT WHAT I AM REALLY SPEAKING ABOUT TODAY GOES DEEPER THAN ECONOMICS. IT CUTS TO THE HEART OF ONE OF THE GREATEST CHALLENGES OF OUR TIME. IT IS A CHALLENGE THAT CAN BE SUMMED UP WITH A QUESTION. THAT QUESTION IS THIS: “HOW CAN HUMANKIND FLOURISH FOR GENERATIONS TO COME WITHOUT LAYING WASTE TO THE LIVING WORLD THAT SUSTAINS US.

ANSWERING THIS QUESTION REQUIRES US TO LOOK AT THE STORY THAT MAINSTREAM ECONOMICS HAS TOLD US. IT IS A STORY ABOUT WHO WE HUMAN BEINGS ARE. ECONOMISTS VIEW PEOPLE AS RATIONAL DECISION MAKERS AND SOLITARY ACTORS WHO ARE MOTIVATED PRIMARILY BY COMPETITION. WE ARE TOLD THAT WE HUMANS ARE CALCULATING, GREEDY, AND DOMINANT OVER NATURE.

TO THE POINT THAT ECONOMIST ADAM SMITH HAS ENCOURAGED US TO PURSUE OUR SELF INTEREST BECAUSE ECONOMICS THEORY SAYS THAT THIS IS WHAT BEST SERVES INDIVIDUAL AND COLLECTIVE WELL BEING OF US HUMANS. THS VIEW OF HUMAN WELL BEING IS CENTRAL TO MODERN ECONOMICS AND THE MODERN WORLD.

BUT HOW TRUE IS IT?

WE NOW KNOW THAT IT IS ONLY HALF THE PICTURE. THE NOBEL PRIZE WINNING ECONOMIST DANIEL KAHNEMAN WAS FAMOUS FOR SHOWING THAT HUMANS HAVE AN AMAZING ABILITY TO ACT COMPLETELY IRRATIONALLY AND THAT NOR ARE WE ENTIRELY SELFISH AND COMPETITIVE. SO WE NOW KNOW THAT THE ECONOMICS OF ADAM SMITH IS ONLY HALF THE PICTURE. OUR CAPACITY FOR LOVE AND CARING AND COOPERATION IS ETCHED INTO OUR DNA.

THIS MEANS THAT THE ECONOMICS SYSTEM WE BUILT IS BASED ON A VERY LIMITED AND LIMITING DEFINITION OF WHAT IT MEANS TO BE HUMAN. BECAUSE OUR ECONOMISTS ENCOURAGE CONSUMPTION AND NOVELTY SEEKING BEHAVIOR, WE HAVE CREATED SOCIETIES THAT VALUE PROFIT, MATERIAL WEALTH, AND ECONOMIC EXPANSION ABOVE ALL ELSE. AND AS A RESULT WE END UP USING EVEN MORE RESOURCES AND CAUSING EVEN MORE ECOLOGICAL HARM.

WHAT HAS THIS LED TO?

IT HAS LED TO ENRICHED HIGH INCOME NATIONS.

AND HERE IS WHAT WE FIND IN THESE COUNTRIES:

SERIOUS SIGNS OF SOCIAL AND CULTURAL DECAY.

IT IS BECAUSE OF THIS THAT THERE IS AN EPIDEMIC OF LONELINESS. {Blogger’s reference: An Epidemic of Loneliness, Harvard University, LINK: https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/21/02/combatting-epidemic-loneliness}

WE ALSO FIND IN THESE SAME COUNTRIES THAT:

(1) TRUST IN THE GOVERNMENT CONTINUES TO DECLINE,

(2) THE GAP BETWEEN RICH AND POOR CONTINUES TO GROW,

(3) MOST PEOPLE’S LIVING STANDARDS ARE NO LONGER RISING.

(4) THE FRUITS OF ECONOMIC EXPANSION ARE GRABBED BY THOSE WHO ALREADY HAVE THE MOST, I.E. THE RICH GET RICHER AND THE POOR GET POORER.

(5) THIS IS NOT TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS. IT IS TRICKLE UP ECONOMICS.

(6) AND THEN WE HAVE THE CLIMATE CRISIS AND THE DESTRUCTION OF THE LIVING WORLD. OUR STUDIES ARE CLEAR. THEY SHOW THAT A LINEAR FOSSIL FUEL BASED MODEL OF ECONOMIC GROWTH THAT RELIES ON UNSUSTAINABLE LEVELS OF CONSUMPTION AND PRODUCTION ARE DESTROYING THE ECOLOGICAL BUILDING BLOCKS ON WHICH OUR WELL BEING DEPENDS.

(8) WE FACE A TRIPLE PLANETARY CRISIS OF CLIMATE, NATURE, AND POLLUTION. OUR AIR, SOIL, AND WATER ARE CONTAMINATED. WE HAVE ALSO SEEN WHAT THE CONSUMPTION AND PRODUCTION OF MORE AND MORE STUFF HAS CAUSED.

(9) LET ME CITE SOME EXAMPLES OF WHAT THE CONSUMPTION AND PRODUCTION OF MORE AND MORE STUFF HAS CAUSED: 1. PLASTIC POLLUTION IN OUR OCEAN HAS INCREASED TEN FOLD SINCE 1980. UP TO 400 MILLION TONS OF INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONSISTING OF HEAVY METALS AND TOXIC SLUDGE ENTER THE OCEAN EVERY YEAR. THE DEVASTATING IRONY IS THAT DESPITE THIS HORRIFIC SIDE EFFECT ECONOMISTS HAVE TO KEEP EXPANDING TO KEEP THE SYSTEM FROM COLLAPSING.

(10) THE DEVASTATING IRONY IS THAT DESPITE THIS HORRIFIC SIDE EFFECT ECONOMIES HAVE TO KEEP EXPANDING TO KEEP THE SYSTEM FROM COLLAPSING. IN DOING SO WE END UP CONSUMING MORE RESOURCES AND CAUSING GREATER ECOLOGICAL HARM. THIS IS THE DILEMMA OF GROWTH.

(11) SO WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT ALL THIS? HERE, BY THE WORD “WE” WE MEAN “HIGH INCOME COUNTRIES”. THE WORLD’S RICHEST COUNTRIES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR MOST OF THE HARM THAT WE SEE TODAY. THE WEALTHIEST 1% PRODUCE MORE THAN DOUBLE THE CARBON EMISSIONS OF THE POOREST 50%, ONE OF OUR RECENT REPORTS FOUND. IT ALSO FOUND THAT THE G20 COUNTRIES ACCOUNT FOR 78% OF ALL GLOBAL MISSIONS.

(12) THESE COUNTRIES HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO QUESTION THE THINKING AND SYSTEMS THAT LED US TO THIS POINT SO THAT THEY CAN BEGIN TO TRANSFORM THEIR ECONOMIES IN A WAY THAT GETS US OUT. BUT HOW??

(13) FIRST THEY WOULD HAVE TO STOP USING ECONOMIC GROWTH AS A MEASURE OF HUMAN WELL BEING. CAMBRIDGE ECONOMIST SIR PARTHA DASGUPTA AND HIS “ECONOMICS OF BIODIVERSITY” HOLD THAT GDP AS A MEASURE OF HUMAN WELL BEING IS FLAWED AND THAT GDP IS BASED ON A FAULTY APPLICATION OF ECONOMICS BECAUSE IT FAILS TO ACCOUNT FOR THE DAMAGE DONE TO THE BIOSPHERE. EVEN THE ARCHITECTS OF GDP KNEW THAT IT WAS A POOR MEASURE OF HUMAN PROGRESS AND YET GDP GROWTH HAS BEEN THE PRIMARY INDICATOR AS OUR SUCCESS AS A SPECIES FOR DECADES. {for decades???}. …. the lecture continues in this vein….

THE ECO WACKO ECONOMICS WISDOM OF PARTHA DASGUPTA

LINK TO THE VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBkxTMS7ZxY

OUR LIFE IS “BUILT AROUND” NATURE BECAUSE WE ARE PART OF NATURE. WE ARE NOT EXTERNAL TO NATURE. NATURE PROVIDES US WITH CLEAN WATER. NATURE PROVIDES POLLINATION SERVICES FOR US TO GROW FOOD. IT CIRCULATES AIR, WATER, I CAN’T THINK OF ANYTHING THAT WE DO WHICH IS NOT FOUNDED ON NATURE’S PROCESSES. SO IF WE JEOPARDIZE THAT, IT’S NOT JUST OUR ECONOMIES THAT ARE IN TROUBLE. OUR LIVES ARE IN TROUBLE. THE DEMANDS WE MAKE OF THE GOODS AND SERVICES THAT NATURE PROVIDES US EXCEEDS ITS ABILITY TO SUPPLY THEM ON A SUSTAINABLE BASIS. SO FAR WE HAVE HAD A GOOD LIFE PARTICULARLY OUR GENERATION. WE HAVE NEVER HAD IT SO GOOD. WE LIVE LONGER, OUR NUMBERS ARE GROWING, WE ARE BETTER EDUCATED, WE ARE BETTER FED, WE TRAVE MORE. THE FLIP SIDE OF IT IS THAT WE ARE LIVING BEYOND OUR MEANS. BY THAT I MEAN THE GOOD LIFE WE ARE LIVING IS DEGRADING THE BIOSPHERE. OUR GOOD LIFE IS MAKING THE BIOSPHERE LESS HABITABLE AND LESS PRODUCTIVE. SO THE QUESTION IS THIS: WHY ARE OUR FINANCIAL SYSTEMS NOT TAKING NATURE INTO ACCOUNT? ECOSYSTEMS ARE ASSETS JUST AS OUR ROAD NETWORK AND EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM ARE ASSETS. SO OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH NATURE IS AN ASSET MANAGEMENT PROBLEM IN TERMS OF BALANCING THE VARIOUS TYPES OF ASSETS IN OUR PORTFOLIO – AND WE ARE MIS-MANAGING THAT. OUR FINANCIAL SYSTEMS DO NOT TAKE NATURE SERIOUSLY BECAUSE THE INFORMATION ON THE BASIS OF WHICH DECISIONS ARE MADE DOES NOT CONTAIN ENOUGH INFORMATION ABOUT NATURE.

FOR EXAMPLE, WE USE GDP AS A MEASURE OF THE SUCCESS OF HUMAN SOCIETIES BUT THAT MEASURE DOES NOT CONTAIN INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT WE ARE DOING TO NATURE.

THE LENS THROUGH WHICH OUR INSTITUTIONS SEE SOCIETY IS ONE WHICH DOES NOT NOTICE NATURE. KEEPING NATURE OUT OF THE FORMAL QUANTITATIVE MODELS OF FINANCE AND ECONOMICS THAT DRIVE POLICY MAKES IT POSSIBLE TO IMAGINE UNLIMITED GROWTH POSSIBILITIES IN OUR MATERIAL STANDARD OF LIVING. THAT CARRIES WITH IT THE THOUGHT THAT HUMANITY IS EXTERNAL TO NATURE WHEREAS WE ARE EMBEDDED AND SINCE NATURE IS BOUNDED AND FINITE IT MUST BE THAT THE IDEA OF UNLIMITED GROWTH IS FULLY FLAWED.

I THINK COVID19 DOES PRESENT AN OPPORTUNITY FOR RE-DIRCTING THE NATURE OF INVESTMENTS. WE NEED TO THINK BIG FOR TWO REASONS. ONE IS THAT GREENING OF OUR INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO BRINGS WITH IT EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES. AND SECONDLY, GREEN PROJECTS ARE COMPLEMENTARY TO ONE ANOTHER. EACH ON ITS OWN, A MILLION HERE AND A MILLION THERE, ALL ON ITS OWN IS NOT ANYWHERE PRODUCTIVE AS A BULK PROJECT IN GREEN INVESMENTS. SO THESE TWO FEATURES, EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES, AND PRODUCTIVITY GAINS BY SPENDING LARGE CHUNKS ON GREEN PROJECTS TOGETHER OFFER REAL LOW HANGING FRUIT.

PARTHA SAYS REPEATEDLY THAT WE ARE PART OF NATURE AND NOT EXTERNAL TO NATURE BUT THE UNDERLYING THESIS OF HIS ECO WACKO ECONOMICS IS THAT HUMANS ARE THE CARETAKERS OF NATURE AND THAT OUR ROLE AS CARETAKER PLAYS A ROLE IN HOW WE CONSTRUCT OUR ECONOMIC SYSTEMS. THESE TWO VIEWS ARE A CONTRADICTION. IF WE ARE PART OF NATURE WE ARE NOT ITS CARETAKER AND THE BAMBI PRINCIPLE DOES NOT APPLY: LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/11/15/the-bambi-principle/

CRIITICAL COMMENTARY

ALTHOUGH MSUYA IS INTRODUCED AS “THE SPEAKER” WHAT WE SEE IN THE VIDEO AND IN HER RECITAL IS THAT SHE IS READING A SCRIPT. THE AUTHOR IS NOT IDENTIFIED BUT IS QUITE LIKELY TO BE SOMEONE FROM THE GRANTHAM INSTITUTE. THEREFORE, WE ASSUME THAT WHAT SHE HAS READ IS THE GRANTHAM INSTITUTE POSITION ON THESE ISSUES.

CONCLUSION:

THE PRESENTATION BY THE GRANTHAM INSTITUTE MAKES THE CASE THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE AND THAT OUR UNDERSTANDING OF FINANCE AND ECONOMICS IS INCOMPLETE AND DANGEROUSLY FLAWED WHEN ECONOMICS IS UNDERSTOOD IN THE ABSENCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS.

THIS ARGUMENT IMPLIES THAT CAPITALISM AS PRACTICED IS A DANGEROUS TOOL THAT IS SHORT TERM AND WITH ASSUMPTIONS THAT EXCLUDE NATURE. THE POINT OF THIS PRESENTATION IN THE CLIMATE CHANGE CONTEXT IS THE IMPLICATION THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS A CREATIION OF CAPITALISM AND THAT THESE KINDS OF THINGS WILL CONTINUE TO HAPPEN IF WE DON’T FIX OUR ECONOMICS SYSTEM AND THAT WE CAN AND MUST FIX OUR ECONOMICS SYSTEM WITH AN ECO WACKO AGENDA INSERTED INTO ECONOMICS AND FINANCE TO INCLUDE NATURE AND THE PLANET BECAUSE WE ARE PART OF NATURE. THESE CHANGES TO OUR ECONOMICS SYSTEM ARE NEEDED SO THAT WE DON’T END UP DESTROYING THE PLANET.

YET WHAT WE SEE TODAY IS THAT EVEN AFTER MORE THAN 400 YEARS OF CAPITALISM AND MORE THAN A CENTURY OF CLASSICAL ECONOMICS WHAT WE FIND IN THE WORLD TODAY IS THAT THE HIGHEST QUALITY OF LIFE ON THE PLANET, LONELINESS OR NO, IS FOUND IN THESE SOCIETIES.

AS FOR THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE POPULATION, WEALTH, POWER, AND REACH OF HUMANS ON THIS PLANET IS NOW SO GREAT THAT THE PLANET HAS REACHED A NEW STATE CALLED THE ANTHROPOCENE WHERE THE WORLD’S NATURAL SYSTEMS ARE AT RISK OF BEING OVERWHELMED AND DESTROYED BY THE ENORMOUS REACH AND POWER OF THE HUMANS THAT NOW CONTOL PLANET, WE NOTE IN A RELATE POST THAT THIS HUMAN CONTROLLED STATE OF THE PLANET IS AN IMPOSSIBILITY.

LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/03/30/the-humans-must-save-the-planet/

In terms of total weight, humans constitute 0.05212% of the total mass of life on earth. Yet we imagine that our numbers are so huge that the planet will be overwhelmed by our population bomb. All the life on earth taken together is 0.000002875065% of the crust of the planet by weight. The crust of the planet where we live and where we have things like land, ocean, atmosphere, climate, and carbon life forms, is 0.3203% of the planet by weight. The other 99.6797% of the planet, the mantle and core, is a place where we have never been and will never be and on which we have no impact whatsoever. In terms of the much feared element carbon that is said to cause planetary devastation by way of climate change and ocean acidification, a mass balance shows that the crust of the planet where we live contains 0.201% of the planet’s carbon some of which appear as carbon lifeforms such as humans. The other 99.8% of the carbon inventory of the planet is in the mantle and core. We conclude that: The crust of the planet where we live is an insignificant portion of the planet. Life on earth is an insignificant portion of the crust of the planet. Humans are an insignificant portion of life on earth … but with an ego that is bigger than the planet.
Although it is true that humans must take care of their environment, we propose that the environment should have a rational definition because the mass balance above does not show that humans are a significant force on a planetary scale or that they are in a position to either save it or to destroy it even with the much feared power of their fossil fueled industrial economy. And that implies that it is not possible that there is such a thing as an Anthropocene in which humans are the dominant geological force of the planet. Like ants and bees, humans are social creatures that live in communities of humans so that when they look around they see humans everywhere. This is the likely source of our human oriented view of the world. Paul Ehrlich’s overpopulation theory is derived from his first visit to India which he described as “people people people people people!” It is this biased view of the planet that makes it possible for us to extrapolate Calcutta to the planet and come up with the fearful image described by Jeff Gibbs as “Have you every wondered what would happen if a single species took over an entire planet?”

IT SHOULD BE MENTIONED THAT ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS ARE NOT IGNORED IN OUR CURRENT ECONOMICS SYSTEM AS THEY ARE ADDRESSED NOT WITH ECONOMICS BUT WITH STRICTLY ENFORECED ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS. A CRITIQUE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS BY WALTER WILLIAMS IS PRESENTED BELOW.

IN THE CONTEXT OF THESE ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATINS, WE PROPOSE THAT THE ENVIRONMENTALISM ARGUMENTS AGAINST CAPITALISM AND THE PROPOSITION THAT ENVIRONMENTALISM SHOULD BE INCORPORATED INTO ECONOMICS AND FINANCE, AND THE FURTHER IMPLICATION OF THESE RELATIONSHIPS THAT THE CLIMATE CHANGE ISSUE OF OUR TIME IS A CREATION OF ECONOMICS GONE WRONG BECAUSE IT HAD FAILED TO INCLUDE ENVIRONMENTALISM ARE BEST UNDERSTOOD AS ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVISM THAT HAD EMBRACED CLIMATE CHANGE AS AN ENVIRONMENTAL CAUSE AND THAT NOW FINDS IT NECESSARY TO INTEGRATE THESE CONCERNS INTO FINANCE, ECONOMICS, AND CAPITALISM.

THIS PHILOSPHICAL APPROACH TO ECONOMICS AND FINANCE AT GRANTHAM IS BEST UNDERSTOOD AS THE CREATION OF A POPULAR MOVEMENT CALLED WOKE ECONOMICS DESCRIBED IN VARIOUS ONLINE DOCUMENTS INCLUDING THIS ONE: LINK: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/07/cancel-culture-and-problem-woke-capitalism/614086/

EXCERPT: But that is, by and large, all they are. And that leads to what I call the “iron law of woke capitalism”: Brands will gravitate toward low-cost, high-noise signals as a substitute for genuine reform, to ensure their survival. (I’m not using the word woke here in a sneering, pejorative sense, but to highlight that the original definition of wokeness is incompatible with capitalism. Also, I’m not taking credit for the coinage: The writer Ross Douthat got there first.) In fact, let’s go further: Those with power inside institutions love splashy progressive gestures—solemn, monochrome social-media posts deploring racism; appointing their first woman to the board; firing low-level employees who attract online fury—because they help preserve their power. Those at the top—who are disproportionately white, male, wealthy, and highly educated—are not being asked to give up anything themselves.

POSTSCRIPT: WALTER WLLIAMS JUNE 2003: ESSAY ON ECO WACKO WOKE ECONOMICS:

https://www.capitalismmagazine.com/2003/06/eco-nomics-what-everyone-should-know-about-economics-and-the-environment/

Disagreement with the world’s environmentalist wackos doesn’t mean that one is for dirty air and water, against conservation and for species extinction. Richard Stroup OF Montana State University explains common-sense approaches to environmental issues in his new book, “Eco-nomics: What Everyone Should Know About Economics and the Environment.” The first lesson of economics is that there’s scarcity.

California’s San Bernardino County was ready to build a new hospital until the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Department endangered flower-loving Delhi Sands fly on the site. The county had to spend $4.5 million to move the hospital 250 feet and to divert funds from its medical mission to pay for Delhi Sands fly studies. Was it worth it? On the benefit side, we have the survival of some Delhi Sand flies, but what about the cost side? How much pain and suffering and loss of human life was there? Millions of dollars were diverted from the hospital’s medical mission. Stroup’s analysis warns us that we must always attend to a regulation’s unanticipated side-effects. Environmental regulation has both beneficiaries and victims. The victims are often invisible. David Lucas owned shoreline property that the South Carolina government told him he couldn’t develop, even though his next-door neighbors developed their property. South Carolina’s regulation made his shoreline property virtually worthless. Lucas sued, and the U.S. Supreme Court forced the South Carolina government to pay him $1 million. Once the state was forced to pay Lucas $1 million, it changed its mind about the worth of keeping the shoreline undeveloped. In fact, it sold it to a developer. South Carolina’s actions demonstrate that incentives matter. Costs born by others will have less of an effect on our choices than when we bear them directly. Environmentalists love it when the government can force private citizens to bear the burden of their agenda, as opposed to requiring that government pay landowners for property losses due to one regulation or another. It’s cheaper, and that means government officials will more readily cave in to environmentalists’ demands. In other words, regulations that stop a landowner from using his land because of the red-cockaded woodpecker, or prevent a farmer from tilling his land because of an endangered mouse, or prevent a homeowner from building a firebreak to protect his home produce costs that are privately borne. If government had to compensate people for regulations that reduce the value of their property, more intelligent decisions would be made. Besides, if a particular measure will benefit the public, why should its cost be borne privately? Environmentalists go berserk whenever there’s talk of drilling for the tens of billions of dollars worth of oil in Alaska’s National Wildlife Refuge. Why? It doesn’t cost them anything. Here’s what I predict. If we gave environmentalists Alaska’s National Wildlife Refuge, you can bet your last dollar that there’d be oil drilling. Why? It would now cost them something to keep the oil in the ground. The Audubon Society owns the Rainey Preserve in Louisiana, a wildlife refuge. There’s oil and natural gas on its property, and it has allowed drilling for over half a century. Not allowing drilling, in the name of saving the environment, would have cost it millions of dollars in revenue. Stroup’s “Eco-nomics” is less than 100 pages long but contains powerful lessons for sensible approaches to the world’s environmental issues. Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. In 1980, he joined the faculty of George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., and is currently the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics. He is also the author of Race and Economics: How Much Can Be Blamed on Discrimination? and Up from the Projects: An Autobiography. Williams participates in many debates and conferences, is a frequent public speaker and often gives testimony before both houses of Congress. This editorial was made available through Creator’s Syndicate.