Search

In a time imbued with civilisation crisis, José Manuel Naredo’s work is of particular relevance. Naredo, one of the most prestigious economists in Spain and a pioneer of ecological economics, first published his most popular book (La economía en evolución. Historia y perspectivas de las categorías básicas del pensamiento económico) in 1987. This article reviews its most recent and updated version released in 2015. Beyond a brilliant criticism of neoclassical economics, he discusses the underlying ideology and implications of the notion of economic system uncritically endorsed by most schools of economic thought. Transcending the usual dichotomy between ‘orthodox’ and ‘heterodox’ economics, Naredo calls for an economic transition built on the integration of different kinds of scientific knowledge as well as other intuitive, metaphysical and ethical fields in favour of a truly inclusive economics. This is, he warns us, a sine qua non for a socioecological transformation to flourish. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The unlimited economic growth that fuels capitalism's metabolism has profoundly transformed a large portion of Earth. The resulting environmental destruction has led to an unprecedented rate of biodiversity loss. Following large‐scale losses of habitats and species, it was recognized that biodiversity is crucial to maintaining functional ecosystems. We sought to continue the debate on the contradictions between economic growth and biodiversity in the conservation science literature and thus invite scholars to engage in reversing the biodiversity crisis through acknowledging the impacts of economic growth. In the 1970s, a global agenda was set to develop different milestones related to sustainable development, including green–blue economic growth, which despite not specifically addressing biodiversity reinforced the idea that economic development based on profit is compatible with the planet's ecology. Only after biodiversity loss captured the attention of environmental sciences researchers in the early 2000s was a global biodiversity agenda implemented. The agenda highlights biodiversity conservation as a major international challenge and recognizes that the main drivers of biodiversity loss derive from economic activities. The post‐2000 biodiversity agendas, including the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the post‐2020 Convention on Biological Diversity Global Strategy Framework, do not consider the negative impacts of growth‐oriented strategies on biodiversity. As a result, global biodiversity conservation priorities are governed by the economic value of biodiversity and its assumed contribution to people's welfare. A large body of empirical evidence shows that unlimited economic growth is the main driver of biodiversity loss in the Anthropocene; thus, we strongly argue for sustainable degrowth and a fundamental shift in societal values. An equitable downscaling of the physical economy can improve ecological conditions, thus reducing biodiversity loss and consequently enhancing human well‐being. Article impact statement: Moving away from growth‐based socioeconomic metabolism of capitalism is required and essential for successful biodiversity conservation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

By the end of 2019, more than 11,000 world scientists declared Planet Earth is facing a climate emergency, which signals the failure of the global climate agenda (GCA). Since it took off thirty years ago, emissions have continued to increase at the planetary level. We add to the literature focusing on the economic and political dimensions shaping the GCA. In particular, we examine its economic growth roots under the umbrella of sustainable development (SD) or green growth to shed some light on whether the rules driving the world economy are shaping it. Such rules are built on the growth ideology fuelling the current extractivist socioeconomic metabolism, which in turn lies behind the socioecological crisis. We review the main international climate-focused events and document a shift in the guiding principles of climate politics from the 1980s onwards under which growth is no longer viewed as a driver of climate change (CC) but as its solution. We argue that the strategy to promote growth-based SD represents the main cause of policy failure. Indeed, the result is a policy that is highly reliant on technological solutions and market-based instruments and leads to the belief that green growth is both possible and the solution to CC. Such a belief restricts the debate to the economy’s ‘decarbonisation’ and CC adaptation and overlooks other important socio-political aspects involve in climate action. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Understanding the local effects of global warming-derived impacts is important to island systems due to their fragile environmental conditions. This is especially true when it comes to Mediterranean insular regions as they are climate change (CC) hotspots where adaptation and mitigation policy design is an urgent matter. Looking at 2030 as a time horizon for climate action and focusing on the Balearic Islands, this paper reviews the physical changes projected for the coming decades as a result of CC and analyses their impacts on regional environmental, economic and social variables. Mitigation and adaptation measures are also proposed based on the identified priority impacts. The fact the Balearics are a top world holiday destination allows the analysis to serve as a guide to other Mediterranean islands with tourism-based economies facing similar CC scenarios. Results show the projected rise of temperature and sea level; the reduction of the average precipitation and increase in evapotranspiration, the droughts and the increase in ocean acidification and deoxygenation are the main threats faced by the Balearics, this putting their economy at risk due to the high tourism’s vulnerability to CC. Mitigation and adaptation action on terrestrial and marine ecosystems, water resources, energy, infrastructure and urban planning, human health, economy, law and education is recommended. Sustainable mobility and waste managing are also viewed as important fields for mitigation action. Conclusions show that diversifying the current socioeconomic model is needed to increase the community and territory resilience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]