Search

Can the ecological footprint framework be used for measuring resource security? Wackernagel et al. (2021) assert it can, emphasizing the role of biocapacity balance – the difference between a country's biocapacity and the ecological footprint of its consumption. This paper argues that a positive biocapacity balance is not a good indicator of resource security, as it misrepresents climate change's relevance to national resources, overlooks resource depletion, and enforces an overly restrictive notion of "semi-autarky". The paper suggests a set of guidelines to better capture resource security. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper analyzes the effect of inherent uncertainty on the willingness-to-pay (WTP) for a policy aimed at reducing expected climate change impacts. To do this, it relates outcome uncertainty to the probability of occurrence of one of these impacts within a given time horizon. Unlike the existing studies, this paper links outcome uncertainty to the uncontrollable component of environmental uncertainty derived from the stochastic nature of an ecosystem's behavior. Results show that the WTP for the policy in the presence of uncertainty does not decrease compared to the scenario where climate change impacts are assumed to occur with certainty. This suggests individuals are adopting a precautionary attitude when stating their WTP. Thus, the paper provides economic justification for preventive measures in highly uncertain contexts. However, findings are not conclusive with respect to the influence of the degree of uncertainty on the support for such measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this paper is to analyze climate change and ecological destruction through the prism of the core general principles of political economy. The paper starts with the principle of historical specificity, and the various waves of climate change through successive cooler and warmer periods on planet Earth, including the most recent climate change escalation through the open circuit associated with the treadmill of production. Then we scrutinize the principle of contradiction associated with the disembedded economy, social costs, entropy and destructive creation. The principle of uneven development is then explored through core–periphery dynamics, ecologically unequal exchange, metabolic rift and asymmetric global (in)justice. The principles of circular and cumulative causation (CCC) and uncertainty are then related to climate change dynamics through non-linear transformations, complex interaction of dominant variables, and threshold effects. Climate change and ecological destruction are impacting on most areas, especially the periphery, earlier and more intensely than previously thought likely. A political economy approach to climate change is able to enrich the analysis of ecological economics and put many critical themes in a broad context. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Recent developments in the political, scientific and economic debate on climate change suggest that it is of critical importance to develop new approaches able to compare policy scenarios for their environmental effectiveness, their distributive effects, their enforceability, their costs and many other dimensions. This paper discusses a quantitative methodology to assess the relative performance of different climate policy scenarios when accounting for their long-term economic, social and environmental impacts. The proposed procedure is based on Data Envelopment Analysis, here employed in evaluating the relative efficiency of eleven global climate policy scenarios. The methodology provides a promising comparison framework; it can be seen as a way of setting some basic guidelines to frame further debates and negotiations and can be flexibly adopted and modified by decision makers to obtain relevant information for policy design. Three major findings emerge from this analysis: (i) stringent climate policies can outperform less ambitious proposals if all sustainability dimensions are taken into account; (ii) a carefully chosen burden-sharing rule is able to bring together climate stabilisation and equity considerations; and (iii) the most inefficient strategy results from the failure to negotiate a post-2012 global climate agreement. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

When the Human Development Index (HDI) was introduced in the 1990s, it was an important step toward a more sensible measure of progress, one defined less by GDP growth and more by social goals. But the limitations of HDI have become clear in the 21st century, given a growing crisis of climate change and ecological breakdown. HDI pays no attention to ecology, and retains an emphasis on high levels of income that – given strong correlations between income and ecological impact – violates sustainability principles. The countries that score highest on the HDI also contribute most, in per capita terms, to climate change and other forms of ecological breakdown. In this sense, HDI promotes a model of development that is empirically incompatible with ecological stability, and impossible to universalize. In this paper I propose an alternative index that corrects for these problems: the Sustainable Development Index (SDI). The SDI retains the base formula of the HDI but places a sufficiency threshold on per capita income, and divides by two key indicators of ecological impact: CO2 emissions and material footprint, both calculated in per capita consumption-based terms and rendered vis-à-vis planetary boundaries. The SDI is an indicator of strong sustainability that measures nations' ecological efficiency in delivering human development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]