La macroeconomía ecológica de la biodiversidad - Brian Czech
•
1 recomendación•532 vistas
Recomendados
Recomendados
Más contenido relacionado
La actualidad más candente
La actualidad más candente (9)
Destacado
Destacado (15)
Similar a La macroeconomía ecológica de la biodiversidad - Brian Czech
Similar a La macroeconomía ecológica de la biodiversidad - Brian Czech (20)
Más de Instituto Humboldt
Más de Instituto Humboldt (20)
Último
Último (20)
La macroeconomía ecológica de la biodiversidad - Brian Czech
- 1. Implications for International Diplomacy The Ecological Macroeconomics Of Biodiversity Conservation
- 6. Economy of Nature Producers (i.e., plants) Consumers Super-Carnivores Service Providers
- 7. Human Economy Producers (i.e., ag/ext.) Heavy Manufacturing Light Manufacturing Service Providers
- 8. Human-Inclusive Economy of Nature Plants Animals Humans Service Providers
- 9. With Economic Growth Plants Animals Human Economy Service Providers
- 12. Economy as 800-Pound Gorilla
- 13. Coming out of the Corner and Growing
- 15. Economic Growth
- 16. Time GDP K Natural capital allocated to human economy Natural capital allocated to economy of nature Macro-Allocation Czech 2000. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(1):4-14.
- 17. Fisheries Volume 30 Series Logo
- 18. K GDP ...maintain steady state economy sufficiently below K . To conserve biodiversity... Therefore Czech 2000. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(1):4-14. Time
- 19. What would you say in response to this?
- 20. “ But what about technological progress?”
- 21. Czech, B. 2008. Prospects for reconciling the conflict between economic growth and biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology 22(6):1389- 1398. Also see… Supply Shock: Economic Growth at the Crossroads (Chapter 7)
- 25. K T GDP Natural capital allocated to human economy Natural capital allocated to economy of nature X natural capital allocable Time K U Macro-Allocation Revisited
- 26. Capital-free growth zone K T 1 K T 2 GDP Time K U Natural capital allocated to human economy Natural capital allocated to economy of nature X natural capital (still) allocable Reconciliation Hypothesis
- 28. R&D Sources of Technological Progress
- 29. R&D _______ Sources of Technological Progress
- 30. R&D Profits Sources of Technological Progress
- 31. Profits
- 33. R&D Profits Catch-22? Sources of Technological Progress
- 34. R&D ???????????????? Profits Sources of Technological Progress
- 35. R&D Profits Economies of scale Sources of Technological Progress Catch-22? ________________ ????????????????
- 39. Capital-free growth zone K T 1 K T 2 GDP Time K U Natural capital allocated to human economy Natural capital allocated to economy of nature X natural capital (still) allocable Reconciliation Hypothesis
- 40. X/2 re-allocated K T 2 GDP Time K U Natural capital allocated to human economy Natural capital allocated to economy of nature X/2 natural capital allocable Hypothesis Refuted K T 1
- 42. GDP K Unsustainable Unsustainable Sustainable
- 43. GDP K Unsustainable Unsustainable Optimal?
- 44. GDP K Unsustainable Unsustainable Anthropocentric Optimum Biocentric Optimum
- 45. GDP K Unsustainable Unsustainable Optimum Democratic Anthropocentric Optimum Biocentric Optimum
- 46. Human Welfare GDP Optimum All Things Considered
- 47. Optimum Uneconomic Growth All Things Considered Human Welfare GDP
- 48. MU GDP MDU Optimal Scale GDP Opt Modified from Daly and Farley 2010, Figure 2.2. 0 MU = MDU MDU = ∞ MU = 0
- 49. MU GDP MDU Economic Growth 0 Uneconomic Growth GDP Opt
- 51. Spheres of Sustainability Ecological Social Economic
- 52. Bigger Picture = Integration Ecological Economic Social
- 53. Ecological Economics Ecosystem Economy Society
- 54. Emphases of Indices LPI MEA MEW HDI ISEW GPI GS GGDP GDP EF GNH
- 55. Emphases of Indices LPI MEA MEW HDI ISEW GPI GS GGDP GDP EF GNH
- 56. Compliments of R. Costanza, Gund Institute for Ecological Economics
- 58. Psychic Welfare GDP/capita Happiness/Satisfaction Inglehart and Klingemann (2000)
- 59. Acknowledgments: Lockheed Martin GDP and Energy
- 61. GDP and Ecological Footprint Compliments of “GliderGuider”
- 62. ESA Listings and GDP 1973 1980 1990 2001 $10 $9 $8 $7 $6 $5 $4 $3 R 2 = 98.4 Czech et al. 2000. Science 308:791-792.
- 65. Ecosystem Services S P Supply
- 66. Ecosystem Services D S P Supply and Demand
- 67. Ecosystem Services S P Supply
- 68. Trophic Theory of Money Producers (i.e., ag/ext.) Heavy Manufacturing Light Manufacturing Service Providers Czech 2000. Shoveling Fuel for a Runaway Train.
- 69. Limits to Real Money Plants Animals Human Economy Service Providers
- 70. Natural capital D S 1 S 2 P 1 Trophic Conundrum P 2 More is needed, less is had.
- 72. Implications for International Diplomacy
- 73. Revisiting the “Steady State Revolution” Czech 2000. Shoveling Fuel for a Runaway Train.
- 76. Percentile: 80 99 100 Expenditures Consumption Classes Liquidating Class
- 77. Percentile: 80 99 100 Expenditures Consumption Classes Liquidating Class Steady State Class
- 78. Percentile: 80 99 100 Expenditures Consumption Classes Liquidating Class Steady State Class Amorphic Class
- 79. Liquidators Steady Staters Amorphs
- 80. Amorphic Class Steady State Class Liquidating Class Population
- 81. Liquidators Amorphs Ecological Capacity PovertyLine Some Steady Staters Most Steady Staters Consumption
- 82. Liquidators Amorphs Liquidators Amorphs Steady Staters Ecological Capacity PovertyLine Some Steady Staters Most Steady Staters Trickle-down Consumption
- 85. Precedent
- 88. “ Why emphasize attitude?” Quiz Which one works?
- 89. “ Put the horse before the cart.” Winner
- 90. Steady Statesmanship For International Diplomacy
- 91. Rich Nations Gobbling Resources at an Unsustainable Rate OAKLAND, California, March 30, 2004 (ENS) – Excessive consumption by the world’s richest nations is making life even more difficult for the world’s least fortunate, according to a new report by Redefining Progress… the wealthiest nations are depleting global resources at an unprecedented rate… mortgaging the future at the expense of today’s children, the poor and the long term health of the planet.
- 92. Liquidators Steady Staters Amorphs
- 93. GDP/Capita
- 94. United States 278,058,881 $35,831 - $9,963,127,765 # 9
- 95. Australia 19,357,594 $23,030 - $445,805,390 # 22
- 96. Colombia 45,659,709 $6,273 - $286,423,527 # 77
- 97. China 1,273,111,290 $3,535 - $4,500,448,410 # 96
- 98. Nigeria 126,635,626 $924 - $117,011,318 # 210
- 99. Afghanistan 26,813,057 $783 - $20,994,624 # 218
- 100. United Nations: A Table for Steady Statesmanship?
- 102. UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre; Global Footprint Network. 2004. Use the Ecological Footprint
- 103. “ Backtracking”
- 104. United States(s) Australia(s) Ecological Capacity PovertyLine Nigeria(s) Colombia(s) Trickle-down Consumption
- 105. United States(s) Australia(s) Global Friends Ecological Capacity PovertyLine Nigeria(s) Colombia(s) Trickle-down Consumption
- 106. But, for a quick act of steady statesmanship, please sign the CASSE position at: www.steadystate.org The End
- 111. United States(s) Australia(s) Global Friends Ecological Capacity PovertyLine Nigeria(s) Colombia(s) Trickle-down Consumption
- 112. Thank you. The End
- 116. Amorphic Class Liquidating Class Steady State Class Consumption
Notas del editor
- The first law of thermodynamics, along with Einstein’s insight on the equivalence of energy and matter, tell us that neither energy nor matter may be created nor destroyed (although they may be transformed). This puts a ceiling on the amount of material and energy available for economic production. The second law, the entropy law, may be reduced to the statement that no production process may achieve 100% efficiency. The first and second laws do not allow for a perpetual increase in the production and consumption of goods and services. That is, they put a cap on economic growth.
- The study of happiness in the fields of economics and psychology is gaining traction. This is a graphical depiction of the relationship between happiness and income. The X-axis is income per person, and the Y-axis is an index of self-reported happiness. The dots represent countries. So each country takes its spot on the graph based on how much money people receive and how happy they are on average. There seems to be a fairly clear relationship between income and happiness. Nations with high incomes tend to be happier. But the relationship starts to break down once a certain income threshold is surpassed. Once people can meet their needs and achieve some level of comfortable living standards, more income appears not to make them happier.