Why Do Economists and Environmental Scientists Have Such a Hard Time Communicating - Essay Example

Text 1. Economists, as specialists in economics, are mainly concerned with the production, consumption and transfer of wealth. 2. Environmental scientists, as interdisciplinary specialists in physical and biological sciences, and environmental science, are concerned with the study of the environment and the solution to environmental problems. 3. The production of wealth is mainly based on the exploitation of the earth’s natural resources. Unchecked exploitation of these finite resources is an off-shoot of the need to engender wealth, and leads to imbalances in the ecosystem. Conversion of these natural resources into manufactured consumer goods often uses technology which causes pollution and global warming. In this context, economists tend to ignore the environmental problems which accompany economic growth. This puts them in direct confrontation with environmental scientists who are concerned with the protection of the environment. 4. (a) Environmental issues, such as clean air, conservation of wildlife, and green energy, cannot be judged in purely monetary terms. While clean air cuts medical costs due to lung disorders, and green energy, such as more efficient refrigeration techniques, can reduce wastage and energy bills, it is more difficult to define the benefits of wildlife conservation in financial terms. Love of wildlife involves social and emotional aspects which cannot be quantified. (b) I would be prepared to pay about five percent of my income towards environmental issues. 5. The question in the title is, “Why do economists and environmental scientists have such a hard time communicating?” The writer concludes that economists and environmental scientists cannot overcome the barrier to communication because environmentalists cannot accept the allocation of monetary values to environmental goods or agree to the fixing of a limit to spending on environmental protection. 6. Professor Graves puts forward the theory that environmental goods are substantially undervalued by economists using standard methods. He argues that it is difficult to estimate what people would spend on environmental goods, as the availability of environmental goods could encourage people to work harder and increase their incomes. 7. (a) The problem defined in the essay is the irreconcilable difference in attitude between economists and environmental scientists in assigning monetary values to environmental goods. (b) The proposed solution is to assign monetary values to environmental goods, so that there can be trade-offs between the competing needs of wealth generation and environmental protection. (c) The writer doubts that an agreement can be reached between economists and environmentalists, as the latter will not accept the assignment of a cash equivalent, however large, to environmental goods or agree to a cap on environmental spending. 8. Summary of Article 1. The article, “Never the Twain Shall Meet: Why do economists and environmental scientists have such a hard time communicating?” deals with the wide gap in the perspectives of economists and environmentalists. While economists firmly believe that environmental goods can be reduced to cash equivalents, this idea is anathema to environmentalists. Economists argue that by assigning monetary values to environmental goods, such as clean air and biological diversity, compromises can be made to achieve a balance between the consumption of these goods and environmental protection. The writer declares that it is inevitable that monetary values be assigned to environmental goods, so that a policy can be formulated and choices can be made regarding the consumption of such goods. Philip Graves, an economist, states that environmental goods are substantially undervalued by economists using standard methods of measurement. He contends that there will be a significant difference in the amount consumers would spend on environmental goods if they were actually available on the market, and the amount they give as a theoretical estimate. He asserts that environmental goods may be undervalued by as much as ten percent. Graves’ argument calls for a substantial increase in expenditure for environmental protection and improvement. On the surface, it appears that environmentalists would approve of Graves’ stand. However, we go back to the sticking point in the perspective of economists and environmentalists: the assignment of monetary values to environmental goods. Environmentalist will not accept cash equivalents for environmental goods as a method to calculate a limit to environmental spending. 9. After reading the article, “Never the Twain Shall Meet:--” it is difficult to conceive of economists and environmental scientists reaching a rapprochement regarding environmental protection. 10. There is definitely a fundamental conflict between Economics and Environmentalism: Economics mandates assigning a monetary value to environmental goods, while Environmentalism vehemently opposes such a policy. Text 2 1. The title “Save the Planet (and prosper)” indicates that the author intends to link environmental protection with economic prosperity. 2. In view of the rampant exploitation of the earth’s natural resources over the ages, and especially in the recent past, the adoption of protective measures to safeguard the environment will definitely cost money. At the same time, I believe that any money spent will yield rich dividends in the future. Investing in green energy will reduce pollution: this will bring down health costs from lung diseases. The cost of petroleum-based fuel will be reduced and the monopoly of oil-rich states will be broken. 3. Costa Rica plans to shift to entirely renewable energy by 2025. 4. China has lowered fertility rates. Denmark has banned power plants fuelled by coal. South Korea has successfully implemented a reforestation program. 5. (a) The problem identified by the author is the fact that the global economy is in direct confrontation with the earth’s eco-system. (b) The proposed solution is to modify the economy so that it takes into consideration the concepts of environmentally sustainable development. (c) The three main areas of the economy to be affected by the proposed solution are energy, materials and food. 6. Summary of Article 2. Lester Brown regrets that the contemporary global economy is exclusively based on market values and ignores the earth’s ecosystem, thus destroying the environment. He categorically asserts the need for an economic system which recognizes the need for sustainable yields, and environmental conservation, in order to protect the welfare of future generations. The adoption of this ‘eco-economy’ which will reconcile present consumption needs with the needs of the future. Brown concedes the difficulty of converting a market-based economy into one which is based on ecological principles. While no country has evolved a definite plan to move to an eco-economy, significant measures have been adopted by several nations such as Europe, Japan, Denmark, South Korea, Costa Rica and Iceland in the areas of population stabilization, green energy, reforestation programs, banning of fossil-fuels, and sustainable transport. Brown declares that an eco-economy must tax environmentally destructive activities instead of income. An eco-economy will influence every aspect of our lives, from food to leisure, and will make us live in unity with nature. The restructuring of the economy, bringing it in harmony with nature, will largely impact the sectors of energy, food and materials. Energy will shift from fossil-based fuels to renewable sources, such as water and wind. Agricultural techniques will emphasize water conservation, top-soil preservation, and the avoidance of deforestation. The focus in materials will shift from extraction to recycling. The entire global economy will be transformed by this ‘Environmental Revolution.’ Those companies with the foresight to accept this inevitable change will emerge as the winners in the new eco-economy. 7. Text 1 attempts to reconcile the difference in perspectives between economists and environmental scientists regarding the assigning of cash equivalents to environmental goods. It seeks to find a common ground so that a balance can be achieved between economic and environmental gains. On the other hand, Text 2 argues for a complete transformation of the present economy into an ‘eco-economy, which incorporates ecological principles into its market-based structure. 8. I find Text 2 to be more persuasive as it makes a very convincing argument in favor of the abolition of the present economy which is causing rampant environmental degradation. It makes a firm case for the argument that environmental protection will lead to concrete, long-term economical gains. Text 1 fails to identify any strong solutions and falls short of the positive note on which Lester Brown concludes his piece. 9. Lester Brown’s article has definitely added a new dimension to my views on environmental conservation. The suggested merging of economics and environmentalism into the inter-disciplinary field of ‘eco-economy’ is a brilliant solution to the economics/environmentalism schism which now prevails. This new field, focused on ensuring that environmental protection and economic gains go hand in hand, is definitely the need of the hour. Read More