Clarksist
1st December 2011, 22:58
So I'm working on a paper that is discussing the core economic principles of ecological socialism as a way to progress the study of ecosocialism in a more fundamental economic way.
What came to me while reading Ecotopia is that ecological economics really does not require or inherently promote nature sentimentalism. In other words, ecological economics is not simply the creation of regulation that curbs pollution, deforestation, etc. That seems to me a kind of liberal ecological economic idea. Radical ecological economics seems to be the internalization of the total cost of production into the production itself.
What does that really mean? Well, right now much of the cost of production is externalized. Pollution might increase medical costs for the people living near the plant, or deforestation might ruin the integrity of the soil and decrease the carbon sink of the area. So if these costs are integrated into the production itself, there is a balance. If a plant that creates toxic fumes has to clean that exhaust as a matter of production, the total price will be represented in the cost.
This gave me an idea, that economic entropy exists whenever an exchange takes place. In other words, limiting the exchanges in a system of production promote energy efficiency. By following this ecological economic principle, we decrease overall energy (thus, increase efficiency). That makes this economic principle appealing to a socialist who looks at the total social cost of production, and production as a public (rather than private) enterprise.
So, as we all know, socialism is (to put it terribly simply, and also universally) the democratic control of the means of production, and economic ecology is the internalization of the totality of social costs into the production.
The idea, then, is to merge the two. Is there promise here? Is this too complicated or not complicated enough? Can these two be reconciled elegantly? Any feedback would be appreciated.
Also, if this is heavily traveled ground already, can anybody give me some reading suggestions along these lines?
What came to me while reading Ecotopia is that ecological economics really does not require or inherently promote nature sentimentalism. In other words, ecological economics is not simply the creation of regulation that curbs pollution, deforestation, etc. That seems to me a kind of liberal ecological economic idea. Radical ecological economics seems to be the internalization of the total cost of production into the production itself.
What does that really mean? Well, right now much of the cost of production is externalized. Pollution might increase medical costs for the people living near the plant, or deforestation might ruin the integrity of the soil and decrease the carbon sink of the area. So if these costs are integrated into the production itself, there is a balance. If a plant that creates toxic fumes has to clean that exhaust as a matter of production, the total price will be represented in the cost.
This gave me an idea, that economic entropy exists whenever an exchange takes place. In other words, limiting the exchanges in a system of production promote energy efficiency. By following this ecological economic principle, we decrease overall energy (thus, increase efficiency). That makes this economic principle appealing to a socialist who looks at the total social cost of production, and production as a public (rather than private) enterprise.
So, as we all know, socialism is (to put it terribly simply, and also universally) the democratic control of the means of production, and economic ecology is the internalization of the totality of social costs into the production.
The idea, then, is to merge the two. Is there promise here? Is this too complicated or not complicated enough? Can these two be reconciled elegantly? Any feedback would be appreciated.
Also, if this is heavily traveled ground already, can anybody give me some reading suggestions along these lines?