Search

International audience; There is scant information as to whether traffic-related air pollution is associated with the incidence of breast cancer. Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and ultrafine particles (UFPs

References to Sraffa and to the neo-Ricardian school is something quite customary in ecological economics. By looking at contributions in this area since the beginning of ecological economics and at contributions on environmental problem from the neo-Ricardian school, we see that a connection between both school still has to be made. This connection should be articulated around the initial aim of Sraffa: to develop a new paradigm, competing against the neoclassical one. Only then it will be possible to develop a real eco-Sraffian approach able to pursue the analysis of the sustainability of the economic system.

This paper argues that the Hotelling’s rule on the rise of royalties during the exhaustion of exhaustible natural resources cannot be retained within a Sraffian framework. At first, a critic of the major attempts that were developed in this domain is conducted. Then this paper brings forward the evidence that the value theory is changed by adding the Hotelling’s rule and is no longer consistent with Sraffa’s thinking. This paper also offers an alternative interpretation in which the rise of the rent on exhaustible natural resources is only dependent on technical requirements.

In one draft note, Sraffa states that: “The difference between the ‘Physical real costs’ and the Ricardo–Marxian theory of ‘labour costs’ is that the first does, and the latter does not, include in them the natural resources that are used up in the course of production (such as coal, iron, exhaustion of land) [Air, water, etc. are not used up: as there is an unlimited supply, no subtraction can be made from [infinity ]. This is fundamental because it does away with ‘human energy’ and such metaphysical things. ... But how are we going to replace these natural things? There are three cases: a) they can be reproduced by labour (land properties, with manures etc.); b) they can be substituted by labour (coal by hydroelectric plant: or by spending in research and discovery of new sources and new methods of economising); c) they cannot be either reproduced nor substituted - and in this case they cannot find a place in a theory of continuous production and consumption: they are dynamical facts, i.e. a stock that is being gradually exhausted and cannot be renewed, and must ultimately lead to destruction of the society. But this case does not satisfy our conditions of a society that just manages to keep continuously alive” (Sraffa’s Unpublished Papers and Correspondence, Trinity College Library, Cambridge, UK, as catalogued by Jonathan Smith, D3:12:42: 33, dated 25 March 1946; Sraffa’s emphasis, quoted in Kurz et al., 2000). Thus Sraffa states that his theory, the “Physical real costs” theory, is taking into account the natural resources. I argue that this is not true: my position is that Sraffa is not dealing with natural resources, but with commodities produced by industries and exchanged in the market. Thus all resources which are not produced by industries or which are not exchanged in the market (for instance, wastes) are not encompassed by its model, and can not receive a price. And we have a confirmation of this when, in chapter Ⅺ of his book, Sraffa explicitly introduces natural resources: “natural resources which are used in production, such as land and mineral deposits, and which being in short supply enable their owners to obtain a rent, can be said to occupy among means of production a position equivalent to that of 'non-basics' among products. Being employed in production, but not themselves produced, they are the converse of commodities which, although produced, are not used in production” (Sraffa, 1960, § 85). In this chapter, we will see how Sraffa deals with natural resources in his book, through the problematic of the rent, in section [1] (after a short introduction about the introduction of the rent in Quesnay and Ricardo's theories). Then we will see how the neo-Ricardians manage to introduce these resources in their models and how they deals with general environmental problems. First we will see the case of exhaustible resources in section [2] and then we will study the introduction of waste, the management of pollution control and the exploitation of renewable resources in section [3].

References to Sraffa and to the neo-Ricardian school is something quite customary in ecological economics. By looking at contributions in this area since the beginning of ecological economics and at contributions on environmental problem from the neo-Ricardian school, we see that a connection between both school still has to be made. This connection should be articulated around the initial aim of Sraffa: to develop a new paradigm, competing against the neoclassical one. Only then it will be possible to develop a real eco-Sraffian approach able to pursue the analysis of the sustainability of the economic system. This review of the literature is divided in three sections. Section 1 describes the part of the literature engaged in the “valuation of nature” debate; section 2 the works of researchers trying to develop a neo-Ricardian approach of ecological conflicts; and section 3 several works trying to use the neo-Ricardian knowledge in the analysis of physical interdependence between processes, in particular for the assessment of CO2 emissions. In each of these last sections, works are presented in a (more or less) chronological way.

With the intention to precise the contribution of water to the socio-economy of Forest Model Landscape, several methodological proposals are revised, that allow to estimate water consumption. Three main methods are considered on the basis of their scope and implementation case: water footprint; estimation from an input-output matrix; life-cycle analysis inventories. They are presented in a synthetic way, highlighting their specificities and possible relevance in the contexts of rural territories with knowledge gaps on the water situation.

With the intention to precise the contribution of water to the socio-economy of Forest Model Landscape, several methodological proposals are revised, that allow to estimate water consumption. Three main methods are considered on the basis of their scope and implementation case: water footprint; estimation from an input-output matrix; life-cycle analysis inventories. They are presented in a synthetic way, highlighting their specificities and possible relevance in the contexts of rural territories with knowledge gaps on the water situation.