The tension you’re describing is a core conflict in modern economics: the friction between Thermodynamics (physical limits) and Neoclassical Economics.
To understand why ecological limits are ignored in favor of "artificial scarcity" (the idea that we lack money or "value" while having an abundance of physical resources we are destroying), we have to look at how our financial systems are designed.
1. The "Externality" Loophole
In standard economic accounting (GDP), the environment is treated as an externality. This means the "services" the Earth provides—clean air, water filtration, climate stability—are valued at $0 until they are extracted and turned into a commodity.
The Logic: A standing forest has no "value" in a GDP calculation. A felled forest sold as timber adds millions to the turnover.
The Result: We treat the planet’s "capital" (the resources themselves) as "income" (profit). We are effectively spending our inheritance and calling it a salary.
2. Debt-Based Monetary Systems
Most of the money in the global turnover ($40 trillion+ mentioned earlier) is created as debt. When a bank issues a loan, that money must be paid back with interest.
The Pressure: Because the total debt in the world is always greater than the total money in existence (due to interest), the economy must grow physically to generate the value needed to pay back that debt.
The Conflict: You cannot have exponential financial growth on a finite physical planet. This creates a "fictional scarcity" of money that forces us to over-exploit "real" ecological abundance.
3. The Decoupling Myth
Many policymakers ignore ecological limits because they believe in "Absolute Decoupling." This is the theory that technological advancement will allow us to grow the economy (GDP) indefinitely without increasing our use of energy or materials.
The Reality: While we have become more efficient (relative decoupling), global material footprint and $CO_2$ emissions have historically risen alongside GDP. We haven't yet proven we can grow the "fictions" without consuming the "real."
4. Short-term Incentives vs. Geological Time
The systems we discussed—NGOs, Governments, and Corporations—operate on very short cycles:
Corporations: 3-month quarterly reports.
Governments: 2-to-4-year election cycles.
The Ecosystem: Operates on decades, centuries, and millennia.
When a system is rewarded for growth now, it is structurally incentivized to ignore a limit that might cause a collapse later.
Comparison of Real vs. Fictional Limits
| Feature | Ecological Limits (The Real) | Economic Scarcity (The Fiction) |
| Source | Laws of Physics/Biology | Human Policy & Central Banks |
| Flexibility | Non-negotiable (e.g., Photosynthesis rates) | Highly flexible (e.g., Printing money/QE) |
| Feedback | Ecosystem collapse, extinction | Inflation, recession, debt crisis |
| Current Status | Over-budget (Overshoot) | Artificially constrained |
The "Degrowth" or "Doughnut" Alternative
Economists like Kate Raworth argue that we should flip the script. Instead of trying to grow the economy and hoping it fits the planet, we should start with the Ecological Ceiling and the Social Foundation, and let the economy be whatever size it needs to be to fit within those two boundaries.
No comments:
Post a Comment