Ecological Economics For Humanity’s Plague Phase (2020) - resilience

Ecological Economics For Humanity’s Plague Phase (2020) - resilience
Skip to content
Topics
All Latest Articles
Energy
Economy
Environment
Food & Water
Society
Featured Topics
Editor’s Picks
Podcasts
In the Rising Tide
Human Nature Odyssey
Crazy Town
Holding the Fire
What Could Possibly Go Right?
Power
About
About Resilience
Resilience Fundamentals
Submission Guidelines
Contact
Donate
Resilience+
Log in / Sign Up
Events & Videos
Online Course
Think Resilience
Economy
Ecological Economics For Humanity’s Plague Phase (2020)
By
Paul Mobbs
September 15, 2021
Each morning the Sun comes up. We instinctively know this. The problem is that in the modern world, people sometimes find it difficult to tell the difference between: Natural phenomena – like the Sun rising; and the grandiose myths we tell ourselves – like the functioning of the economy.
In this series I don’t want to just look at big heavy books. I also want to review significant papers from academic journals. I’ve picked
this paper
as an example of an academic work that needs to be more widely read. Written by
Professor William E. Rees
, one of the originators of the idea of
‘ecological footprinting’
, it reviews how humanity is changing the global environment.
Ecological Economics:
‘Ecological Economics For Humanity’s Plague Phase’
, vol.169 art.106519, March 2020
(pay-walled)
‘open copy’ of paper here
If you click the link to this paper you’re immediately confronted by a pay-wall, and asked for $40. Don’t despair. Go to
Google Scholar
, or if your service provider doesn’t block it,
Sci-Hub
, and you can often access a copy of the paper for free.
When people look at an academic paper they tend to read the abstract – and perhaps not much else. That’s a pity as the abstract rarely captures the important detail, and certainly not the key statements in a paper which give it value.
Well written
‘review articles’
such as this are a really good way for the public to understand an issue. It lists the key facts, but more importantly, it references all the best research on an issue; that ideally you’d take the time to look-up and read as well.
Let’s begin with the abstract:
The human enterprise is in potentially disastrous ‘overshoot’, exploiting the ecosphere beyond ecosystems’ regenerative capacity and filling natural waste sinks to overflowing. Economic behaviour that was once ‘rational’ has become maladaptive. This situation is the inevitable outcome of humanity’s natural expansionist tendencies reinforced by ecologically vacuous growth-oriented ‘neoliberal’ economic theory.
What this paper is exploring is why humanity, but more importantly the people who really should know better – the economists – can’t see the effects that we’re having on the planet. Or more formally, why they might see them, but they disregard them because they don’t give them adequate weight compared to other factors.
Ecological economics
has technically always been part of economics – right back to
Adam Smith
and
William Stanley Jevons
. It didn’t really become ‘a thing’ in its own right until the 1970s, when mainstream economics was politicised, and diverge from observed reality to became the
secular religion of growth
and affluence.
That’s also when ecological economics became controversial, because it departed from that politicised message of progress and consumption.
As Rees says on page 2:
The economic paradigms that run our lives are made-up stories, complex social constructs conceived in language and massaged into accepted theory through academic debate, social discourse and practical experience. However, just because some economic model has become received wisdom does not mean it accurately represents either actual human behaviour or that of the ecological systems with which the economy interacts in the real world.
Quite simply, economists don’t see the impact of their system because that issue doesn’t have value in the stories they tell.
The issue here are the mathematics of exponential growth. This is what politicians and the media idolise, and we pay homage to in the financial bulletins of news broadcasts. The fact is, though, it’s the material implications of human growth which – virus like – are killing the Earth as we consume it.
There’s a very eye-catching graph of that on page 4. The best explanation of that is in the text to the left:
…it is these parallel (and on-going) increases in energy supply, population, resource consumption and waste production that are driving climate change and the precipitous degradation of the ecosphere… It is a quirk of exponential growth that half the fossil energy ever used has been burned in just the past 35 years! (The same for many other industrially important minerals and metals and waste generation and pollution.)
The conclusion, on page 7, states the clear need for change:
De facto human eco-behavior should become the foundation for eco-economic policy in the 21st Century. It is clear for the reasons explored above that the human enterprise already exceeds global carrying capacity and is dangerously into overshoot – 68 % in 2016.
The greater truth that the paper encapsulates, though, is stated on page 8:
No doubt the political and economic mainstream – and many ordinary citizens – will see these principles and actions as impossibly radical. Again, however, they are consistent with basic theory and empirical evidence. On its current trajectory, the present system will crash; the corrective throughput reductions suggested above are in line with those of various other technical analyses.
Over recent years, as more papers like this have circulated in prestigious academic journals, I’ve tried to discuss their contents with the section of the public who should be most concerned – environmentalists. The fact is, though, many environmentalist also consider papers such as this to be ‘impossibly radical’.
Just as Rees outlines in relation to ecological economics, if environmentalism has failed to have any impact upon environmental destruction, it is because those involved have compromised on the issue of growth, and consumerism, despite all
evidence to the contrary
They abandoned
the truly radical nature of early environmentalism, to become ineffectual
‘green consumers’
[slide-anything id=’3472166′]
Necessarily provocative review papers, such as this, are intended to provoke debate. The problem is they are all too often silenced – ignored by the media, as well as the people who profess to represent the ideas they contain.
William Rees’ paper deserves a far wider readership and debate. And it is only by reading academic papers such as this, that the public can circumvent that ideological block in the mainstream media, as well as overly conservative lobby groups, and discuss that the knowledge they contain – hopefully, to shift those intransigent blocks to change.
Teaser photo credit: By Georges Seguin (Okki) – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=75873370
Paul Mobbs
Paul Mobbs is an independent environmental consultant, investigator, author and lecturer, and maintains the Free Range Activism Website (FRAW).
Tags:
ecological overshoot, economic growth paradigm
Related Articles
'SELECT SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS wp_posts.ID
FROM wp_posts LEFT JOIN wp_term_relationships ON (wp_posts.ID = wp_term_relationships.object_id)
WHERE 1=1 AND wp_posts.ID NOT IN (3488642) AND (
wp_term_relationships.term_taxonomy_id IN (2,3,8994)
) AND wp_posts.post_type = \'post\' AND ((wp_posts.post_status = \'publish\'))
GROUP BY wp_posts.ID
ORDER BY wp_posts.post_date DESC
LIMIT 0, 3'
What to expect from the first Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels
By
Kyla Tienhaara
Christina Frendo
The Conversation
More than 50 countries are meeting in Colombia to explore how economies can move away from coal, oil and gas through “complementary” multilateral negotiations.
April 24, 2026
How losing nature from our language changes how we think about the world
By
Reynard Loki
Danica Tomber
Independent Media Institute
As references to rivers, trees, and wildlife fade from books, songs, and everyday speech, our connection to the natural world also diminishes. Reclaiming these words can help us recognize, appreciate, and ultimately, preserve the environment.
April 24, 2026
Corporations have become the world’s most powerful institutions. It’s time to rewrite the rules
By
Jeremy Lent
Ecocivilization
From engineered consumer addiction to environmental destruction, corporate harm is not a failure of the system but its logic. But because corporations exist by public charter, that logic can be rewritten through democratic oversight, time-limited licenses and rules that focus on risks to people and the planet.
April 22, 2026
Resilience
is a program of
Post Carbon Institute
, a nonprofit organization dedicated to helping the world transition away from fossil fuels and build sustainable, resilient communities.
Reposting Policy
Contact
Donate
RSS