By RESCUE Green on
10/28/2009 4:32 PM
 Economists are not ecologists and ecologists are not economists. The same can be said for policy makers. Neither economists nor policy makers have studied the principles of ecology, nor integrate these principals into their work. Can we expect economists and policy makers to keep the environment in mind when making decisions concerning business actions and legislation?
Read More »
|
By RESCUE Green on
8/31/2009 7:45 PM
 In most situations, businesses, individuals, and families weigh the costs and benefits associated with certain actions, projects, and investments, in order to choose the best possible solution. Hence, the name Cost-Benefit Analysis or CBA. This seems like a practical and logical way to make decisions, however when considering environmental action several issues arise.
Read More »
|
By RESCUE Green on
8/25/2009 12:42 PM
 The controversial Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) theory states that as countries continue to grow economically and per capita income increases environmental degradation will peak and then decrease. Thus, giving the curve the “inverted u-shape”. As Leigh Raymond states in his paper "Reconsidering the Environmental Kuznets Curve", “this would mean countries can ‘grow’ their way economically out of their environmental problems,” however there are several downsides in using economic growth as environmental policy.
There are several weaknesses to the EKG argument:
|
By RESCUE Green on
8/17/2009 4:59 PM
 Capitalism has, according to many, been the source and fuel for environmental degradation and climate change. What else allowed us to become the infamous “throw away” society where a product is manufactured, sold, and left in the landfill in some extreme cases less than a few months? Our wants have outpaced and grown much larger than our primary needs to survive. Capitalism has allowed us to keep taking more, but all this has come with a price, not just monetary, but nature charges a price for its eco-services.
Read More »
|
By RESCUE Green on
8/2/2009 2:20 PM
 “Unlocking Energy Efficiency in the US Economy”
Back in 2003 the New York Times published an article titled, “Not building green is a matter of economics,” stating that developers had not adopted sustainable building practices because the economic rewards had yet to be made. At this time those vying to promote green building still needed to make a business case. Even today a widely spread myth concerning green buildings is that it costs much more to build compared to traditional buildings constructed to code, therefore, not worth the extra investment. While the average cost premium to construct a green building is about 2% or $3-5 sq/ft, the added benefits received by constructing green outweigh those of conventional building design. Overall green buildings have greater energy and water savings, reduced waste, improved indoor environmental quality, greater employee comfort/productivity, reduced employee health costs and lower operations and maintenance costs. Today the business case is obvious, the technology is available and proven, so why hasn’t the US tapped into this source of saving?
|