Rio+20

Looking back at 20 years of envorinmental and resource economics

R. Gerlagh, T. Sterner

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

Abstract

Twenty years on from the Rio '92 conference, we must face the fact that there have been a few successes but more failures. Scientific complexity, uncertainty, short-termism inherent in politics, the free-rider problem, and issues of fairness are part of the explanation for the lack of progress, but we point to more fundamental motivational problems. It is time to assess our responsibility as economists in the field of environment and resources. Our scientific contribution has been misleading because our models are structurally incapable of addressing major concerns. The cost-benefit test is not fit to assess large-scale resource conservation projects, including climate abatement. This understanding was already present during the Rio '92 summit, but the problems, while identified, have not been resolved twenty years later. The contribution from theory, through the sustainability paradigm of non-decreasing welfare, has turned out ineffective. It does not provide us with tools for designing a better future for our children. Instead, it risks choosing a constant welfare path, with knowledge increasing but natural resources deteriorating, while not properly analyzing the richer possibilities for a better future that nature and creativity imply. It is time for our profession to search for a more constructive contribution in theory and practice.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)155-159
JournalEnvironmental and Resource Economics
Volume54
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2013

Fingerprint

Natural resources
Sustainable development
Conservation
Economics
resource
economics
Costs
politics
natural resource
sustainability
climate
Uncertainty
Resource economics
resource conservation
test
responsibility
project
cost-benefit
Climate
Resource conservation

Keywords

  • Rio Earth summit
  • sustainability
  • climate change

Cite this

@article{265af7c0ad144e0bb403377dc0f52f17,
title = "Rio+20: Looking back at 20 years of envorinmental and resource economics",
abstract = "Twenty years on from the Rio '92 conference, we must face the fact that there have been a few successes but more failures. Scientific complexity, uncertainty, short-termism inherent in politics, the free-rider problem, and issues of fairness are part of the explanation for the lack of progress, but we point to more fundamental motivational problems. It is time to assess our responsibility as economists in the field of environment and resources. Our scientific contribution has been misleading because our models are structurally incapable of addressing major concerns. The cost-benefit test is not fit to assess large-scale resource conservation projects, including climate abatement. This understanding was already present during the Rio '92 summit, but the problems, while identified, have not been resolved twenty years later. The contribution from theory, through the sustainability paradigm of non-decreasing welfare, has turned out ineffective. It does not provide us with tools for designing a better future for our children. Instead, it risks choosing a constant welfare path, with knowledge increasing but natural resources deteriorating, while not properly analyzing the richer possibilities for a better future that nature and creativity imply. It is time for our profession to search for a more constructive contribution in theory and practice.",
keywords = "Rio Earth summit, sustainability, climate change",
author = "R. Gerlagh and T. Sterner",
year = "2013",
doi = "10.1007/s10640-012-9627-6",
language = "English",
volume = "54",
pages = "155--159",
journal = "Environmental and Resource Economics",
issn = "0924-6460",
publisher = "Springer",
number = "2",

}

Rio+20 : Looking back at 20 years of envorinmental and resource economics. / Gerlagh, R.; Sterner, T.

In: Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 54, No. 2, 2013, p. 155-159.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Rio+20

T2 - Looking back at 20 years of envorinmental and resource economics

AU - Gerlagh, R.

AU - Sterner, T.

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - Twenty years on from the Rio '92 conference, we must face the fact that there have been a few successes but more failures. Scientific complexity, uncertainty, short-termism inherent in politics, the free-rider problem, and issues of fairness are part of the explanation for the lack of progress, but we point to more fundamental motivational problems. It is time to assess our responsibility as economists in the field of environment and resources. Our scientific contribution has been misleading because our models are structurally incapable of addressing major concerns. The cost-benefit test is not fit to assess large-scale resource conservation projects, including climate abatement. This understanding was already present during the Rio '92 summit, but the problems, while identified, have not been resolved twenty years later. The contribution from theory, through the sustainability paradigm of non-decreasing welfare, has turned out ineffective. It does not provide us with tools for designing a better future for our children. Instead, it risks choosing a constant welfare path, with knowledge increasing but natural resources deteriorating, while not properly analyzing the richer possibilities for a better future that nature and creativity imply. It is time for our profession to search for a more constructive contribution in theory and practice.

AB - Twenty years on from the Rio '92 conference, we must face the fact that there have been a few successes but more failures. Scientific complexity, uncertainty, short-termism inherent in politics, the free-rider problem, and issues of fairness are part of the explanation for the lack of progress, but we point to more fundamental motivational problems. It is time to assess our responsibility as economists in the field of environment and resources. Our scientific contribution has been misleading because our models are structurally incapable of addressing major concerns. The cost-benefit test is not fit to assess large-scale resource conservation projects, including climate abatement. This understanding was already present during the Rio '92 summit, but the problems, while identified, have not been resolved twenty years later. The contribution from theory, through the sustainability paradigm of non-decreasing welfare, has turned out ineffective. It does not provide us with tools for designing a better future for our children. Instead, it risks choosing a constant welfare path, with knowledge increasing but natural resources deteriorating, while not properly analyzing the richer possibilities for a better future that nature and creativity imply. It is time for our profession to search for a more constructive contribution in theory and practice.

KW - Rio Earth summit

KW - sustainability

KW - climate change

U2 - 10.1007/s10640-012-9627-6

DO - 10.1007/s10640-012-9627-6

M3 - Article

VL - 54

SP - 155

EP - 159

JO - Environmental and Resource Economics

JF - Environmental and Resource Economics

SN - 0924-6460

IS - 2

ER -