The Australia – New Zealand Society for Ecological Economics (ANZSEE) Conference Committee has extended their abstract submission deadline by three weeks. With so many inquiries and high interest they have decided to extend the submission deadline until August 16. If you wish to submit an abstract please go to www.anzsee.org.
The latest research and policy initiatives on state-level Genuine Progress Indicators (GPI) was featured on a panel at the USSEE 2013. From today’s Burlington Free Press:
The alliance of environmental activism and alternative economic thinking was showcased recently at the University of Vermont, site of the seventh biennial conference of the U.S. Society for Ecological Economics. And one of the topics that came in for attention was an alternative to GDP known as the Genuine Progress Indicator — an index, billed as a measure of a state’s well-being, that soon will make its debut here with the blessing of the Vermont Legislature.
Check out the full article at:
The closing plenary session at the USSEE 2013 conference featured two panelists who shared their views on “Building Our Economy: Moving Past Rhetoric to a Just and Sustainable Future”. Nancy Folbre (University of Massachusetts-Amherst) presented her perspectives in a lecture entitled, “Accounting, Pink and Green: Valuing Human, Social and Environmental Capital”. Riane Eisler (Center for Partnership Studies) discussed her ideas in a lecture entitled, “Moving Past Rhetoric to a Just and Sustainable Future”. The plenary session was moderated by USSEE President Valerie A. Luzadis of SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry.
Dr. Nancy Folbre is Professor of Economics at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Her research explores the interface between political economy and feminist theory with a particular emphasis on the value of unpaid care work. She is the author of Greed, Lust, and Gender: A History of Economic Ideas and Valuing Children: Rethinking the Economics of the Family.
Dr. Riane Eisler is the co-founder and president of the Center for Partnership Studies, an organization working to develop social wealth indicators through its Caring Economy Campaign. She is internationally known for her groundbreaking contributions as a systems scientist and attorney working for human rights. She is author of The Real Wealth of Nations: Creating a Caring Economics and The Chalice and the Blade: Our History, Our Future.
A panel of scholars discussed issues of development and poverty in a plenary panel session on June 12 at the USSEE 2013 conference in Burlington, Vermont. The session was entitled, “Redefining Development: Poverty in a No-Growth Economy,” and the panel included Robin Broad, Ashwini Chhatre, and William Rees. The panel was moderated by Laura Schmitt Olabisi of Michigan State University.
Dr. Robin Broad is Professor of International Development at American University. She is a leading scholar and participant in the movement to create a more just and sustainable economic globalization. She is editor of Global Backlash: Citizens Initiatives for a Just World Economy and co-author of Development Redefined: How the Market Met Its Match.
Dr. Ashwini Chhatre is Assistant Professor of Geography at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. His research interests address dynamic cross-scale interactions between democratization, economic development, and environmental governance.
Dr. William Rees is Professor Emeritus at the University of British Columbia and former Director of the School of Community and Regional Planning. Professor Rees founded the Ecological and Resources Planning component of the School’s academic program and, as Director, consolidated its teaching and research mission on the theme of long-term sustainability. He is best known in ecological economics as the originator and co-developer of ecological footprint analysis.
An interdisciplinary panel discussed the “characteristics of an ecologically sound and socially just socioeconomic framework” on June 11 at the USSEE 2013 conference in Burlington, Vermont. Julie Nelson (University of Massachusetts-Boston) provided her thoughts on such characteristics in a lecture entitled, “Economics for Humans (and the World)”. Fred Magdoff (University of Vermont) provided remarks in a lecture entitled, “Characteristics of an Ecological Civilization”. The panel was moderated by Professor Lisi Krall, of SUNY-Cortland.
Julie A. Nelson is Professor of Economics at the University of Massachusetts-Boston and Senior Research Fellow at the Global Development and Environment Institute at Tufts University. She is most known for her application of feminist theory to questions of the definition of the discipline of economics, and its models and methodology. She is author of Economics for Humans and Feminism, Objectivity, and Economics.
Fred Magdoff is Professor Emeritus of Plant and Soil Science at the University of Vermont. His area of speciality is soil fertility and management. His academic research focused on the significance of soil organic matter and soil testing to reduce unneeded fertilizer application. He is co-author of What Every Environmentalist Needs to Know About Capitalism, Agriculture, and Food in Crisis: Conflict, Resistance, and Renewal.
A distinguished panel of speakers from the business, political, academic, and sustainability practice sectors addressed the USSEE 2013 conference in Burlington, Vermont, in a session entitled, “Systemic Change at a Scale That Matters–How Does Societal Innovation Go Viral?” The panel included Cylvia Hayes, Darcy Winslow, Hal Hamilton, and Peter Senge. The session sparked broad discussion about the role of the corporate, NGO, and policy sectors of the economy in advancing dialogue on sustainability. The session was moderated by Marta Ceroni of the Donella Meadows Institute.
Cylvia Hayes is founder and CEO of 3EStrategies, a clean economy consulting firm, and also the First Lady of Oregon. She has 23 years of experience in clean energy and sustainable economic development.
Darcy Winslow is a pioneer and active practitioner of sustainability frameworks and principles, exploring and experimenting with the application of these to all aspects of business. She is founder of DSW Collective, LLC, which brings together a wide range of consulting and strategy experts with complementary backgrounds to focus on the alignment of an organizations values and principles with the development and implementation of practical yet aggressive systemic sustainable design strategies. Darcy also worked at Nike, Inc. for over 20 years and held several senior management positions within the business.
Hal Hamilton founded and co-directs the global Sustainable Food Lab. The purpose of the Sustainable Food Lab is to mainstream sustainability in global food supply, and its projects are all aimed at practical supply chain tools and shared learning among peers.
Peter Senge is an American scientist and director of the Center for Organizational Learning at the MIT Sloan School of Management. He is known as author of the book The Fifth Discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization from 1990 (new edition 2006).
Current president of the U.S. Society for Ecological Economics, Professor Valerie A. Luzadis of the State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry, addressed the participants of the 2013 conference at the luncheon of the second day of the biennial meeting. The full text of her speech is presented below.
Good afternoon, everyone. What an act to follow! Annie Leonard’s impressive accomplishments give me hope that we will make the needed transformation in our economy and society. Today we celebrate Annie’s part in this transformation and we each have a critical part to play. And that’s what I’d like to address this afternoon – the next Great Transformation and our role in it. This time it is a Great Transformation from what Polyani dubbed a Market Society to a just and ecologically sustainable society. And this means a Great Transformation with a capital G and a capital T. You remember the “Great Depression” and the reverence we give it by capitalizing it in all our history books? Well I propose that we usher in the next Great Transformation – complete with capital letters because we should revere this. The Great Transformation to a dominant paradigm of justice and sustainability in which human and non-human life flourishes. The Great Transformation to a dominant paradigm of attention to what we DO want, not what we DON’T want. The Great Transformation to a society that values and respects each other and the non-human world that is the rest of this planet. The Great Transformation to a society which measures how it’s faring with QOL instead of GDP: Quality of Life instead of Gross Domestic Product. The Great Transformation in which story and science, imagination, innovation, intuition and data, all braid together toward understanding the unity of Earth’s systems and inhabitants and the beauty of its heterogeneity. One day the children of this planet will learn about The Great Transformation and wonder, stunned at how people could have stood for such inequity, disrespect, and dualism in everything around them. They will wonder how we could have maintained an economic system that delivered a decent quality of life to only a few. We certainly have begun this transformation but we’re still very much in a lower case t transformation stage.
We have only just begun…and we have not yet hit the hard stuff.
What have we done? We’ve begun nibbling at the edges of the dominant paradigm and we have started to decry the outcomes. We make note of continued poverty, increasing income inequality, decline in corporate taxes, increasing CO2 emissions, increasing proportion of the population incarcerated, that we generate more waste than ever, melting glaciers raising sea level, loss of biodiversity from species extinction, water scarcity. I could go on but you all know these issues.
What have we done? Renewable energy sources – sun, wind, wood, grasses, algae. Local currencies, co-ops, credit unions, land trusts, easements, neighborhood potluck dinners, worker owned companies, GPI instead of GDP. And we’ve started organizations: the New Economic Institute, 350.org, the Center for a new American Dream, the Center for Advancement of the Steady State Economy, Redefining Progress, Global Footprint Network, American Sustainable Business Council, Asset-Based Community Development Institute, Transition Towns, Business Alliance for Local Living Economics, Ethical Markets Media, Green America, Other Worlds, Practical Action Publishing, Slow Money, and Small-mart. You get the idea – some of these have roots in this group.
What do we need to do now? We need to face the big issues – the systemic problems – and deal with them at the appropriate scale. It’s a tough thing to face, that the little things we’re doing are not adding up – at least not yet. Gar Alperovitz makes this point in his newest book What Then Must We Do. This nibbling we’ve started to do includes some small steps that do help. I’ll use the example of valuation of ecosystem services to illustrate this.
Valuation hurts. And valuation helps. Both of these statements are true. We need to understand where in the system we are engaging valuation to see where it helps and where it hurts. Debate about ecosystem valuation has not made this distinction – that valuation has different functions in different places in the system.
Valuation can help in the area of practice. It can help to bring consideration of ecosystems into the decision making process and that makes sense in practice given the current dominant economic paradigm and the cost-benefit mindset. This falls into the practice area within the broader system of transforming the economy. And it is just one tool that practitioners can use in this transformation.
Valuation also hurts. It hurts when we understand it as transforming the economic system. It does not. It is trouble when policy makers and citizens believe that all we have to do is put prices on ecosystem services and our problems will be solved. Valuation of ecosystem services will not solve the problems of unemployment or poverty. Transformative ideas to answer such systemic issues we face fall into the realm of knowledge creation, scholarship – a different location than practice in the broader system. We must transform the system such that valuation as practiced now becomes irrelevant – and tweaking valuation methods and making new applications can help in practice but it is not transformative.
So, tweaking valuation is nibbling at the edges and that’s not enough; creating, debating and testing transformative ideas are what we must do. The need for a ‘warning label’ for valuation of ecosystem services emerged from discussions this spring with the USSEE Board of Directors.
You know what this means – like the warning label you see on that hair dryer your room: “Do Not Use While Bathing”. That one might seem obvious when stated in this setting….but clearly, someone did not understand the potential danger. I submit that this is also true about ecosystem valuation. The warning label that “this will not save the world” is necessary.
Interestingly, using valuation in practice while working to develop new paradigms to render it unnecessary is true to one of the foundational tenets of Ecological Economics: conceptual pluralism. When introducing this concept Norgaard tells us that the dominant paradigm is just one of the “multiple incongruent ways of knowing” and that it “acknowledges the limits, and hence appropriateness of specific patterns of reasoning”. The conceptions of the dominant paradigm are part of the pluralism we must acknowledge. And this brings us back to the origins of Ecological Economics and the Paramount Positions that Garret Hardin gave us at the start. He gave us 12 – I’ll share just a few: the world is limited, there’s no such thing as a free lunch, the law of unintended consequences, there’s no away to throw to, population matters, scale effects are inescapable, cultural carrying capacity and the standard of living are inversely related, the maximum is not the optimum, the greatest good of the greatest number is nonsense, perfectly reliable machine-human couplings are self-defeating, do not transgress the carrying capacity, and for every shortage of supply there is a ‘longage’ of demand. It’s worth looking these up.
I’m going to be so bold as to add one more to Hardin’s list of Paramount positions: the current economic structure in not able to provide for a just and sustainable world. This addition is based on our current situation, 22 years later, and Hardin’s articulation of the need for paramount positions in the first place – in his words: “to place the burden of proof to those who might otherwise lead serious investigators down paths that have proven unproductive”. The burden of proof should be on those leading us to maintain the current economic structure to demonstrate that it is helping to create the world we want. Let’s shift the burden of proof!
Institutionally, Ecological Economics appears to be experiencing the coming of age and reflection of core values and principles that we see in twenty-something adults. It’s the right time to consider which of the formative principles we will bring forward and which should change or be left behind.
So what are some of these big issues we need to face?
The first I will mention is the Complexity-Rigor Challenge. As we grapple with effectively researching complex systems the issue of rigor is raised. Rigor is necessary. And we need to rethink how we understand and maintain it. The trade-offs between predictive capability, adequate reflection of complexity and uncertainty in a rigorous way, and the desire — the need –for science to inform policy decisions suggest that we need to rethink how we achieve scientific rigor when working in complex systems.
Rigor implies a structure and control in how we conduct research. We have understood this as strict adherence to “truth” – and this may be challenging when working in transdisciplinary ways on complex problems. The importance of identifying and articulating bias and value foundations of such inquiries provides a means to guard against being blind to demonstrations of fallacy of prized hypotheses. I am not advocating devolution to relativism; rather we must treat complexity in its own terms. And we do not know yet how to effectively do this.
At the moment, without directly addressing this issue, we run the risk of retreating from embracing complexity in transdisciplinary ways to the comfort of our disciplinary foundations and scientific rigor as we have always (so far) defined it.
Next issue… We need to rethink the concept of scarcity as the organizing principle of economic thinking – it forces attention to what we don’t want…we must turn our attention to what we do want. When we lift our minds to engage other ways of knowing, we see that attention matters. And this is a concept that goes beyond Buddhist and other religious and spiritual traditions into science. We have learned that attention to the muscle group being exercised improves results. We have learned that mental attention to the positive can improve health conditions. And just last week a study came out suggesting that we actually taste things differently depending upon our attention and mental state. So it’s time for Economics to turn attention to what we do want instead of organizing around what we do not want – scarcity. This approach does not gaily skip past an understanding of limits; it simply puts them in a different place within our field of attention. It is entirely possible to engage a precautionary stance with attention to what we do want. We just have to decide to do that.
And we are only just beginning to ask why we behave as we do–how and why we decide what we do. This is the next big issue. Beyond identifying the focus on scarcity and consumption demanded by the current economic system, we need to understand why in order to change our collective mindset. And this is where the going might get tough. We all know the challenge of changing our minds…once an idea is set; boy is it hard to shift. Think about it. How many of us know someone so set in their ways, you just can’t imagine them changing their minds….I know I can think of a few…maybe more than a few!
So how do we do this? How do we change our minds? The first thing anyone who has ever kicked a habit, made a great personal or professional change, knows is that you must ask good questions – the right questions. And sometimes these questions themselves or the possible answers are pretty frightening. We all know the power of fear in our lives….sometimes we’re just afraid to look. We’re all here this week because we know we must look, we are leaders in this effort to ask good questions, but I submit that we’re still not asking the right questions enough. We need to get to the hard stuff. Ecological Economics was founded on the willingness and need to challenge the fundamental assumptions of some of the world’s most deeply entrenched conceptions — neoclassical economics and neoliberal capitalism. We need Annie to do a new chapter: “The Story of the Hard Stuff” to show us the way!
So how do we do this? Think about a moment when you saw someone change their mind or when they realized that their mind had changed. What a powerful thing! As a scientist, I admit that data can change my mind. But when it comes to issues of values, I realized that it’s not always data that does it or only data that does it. Upon reflection, I realized that some of the most powerful shifts of mind I have experienced myself or observed in others were stimulated by stories. Personal stories. And so, as ecological economic scholars and practitioners ushering in the Great Transformation to a just and sustainable world, I urge you to add stories to your repertoire.
Of course we need to invite in those who already know the power of narrative and have the skills to do it well. But we also need to tell our own stories. Talk about what you’ve seen in the field, talk about the changes in yourself. Talk about how you found yourself facing the need for systemic change and how the answers seem out of reach sometimes. We need to talk about the fact that we do not have a magic pill to solve all these problems, that we are working hard to figure it out, and that we need to talk with each other to do so. And we need to hear the stories of others. We need to hear stories of small victories and big disasters. We need to hear how our neighbors are faring. We need to hear how our neighbors understand that the current economic structure delivers quality of life. We need to use the power of narrative in ways that build on the science that we practice and conduct. Harnessing the power of narrative toward the next Great Transformation will help us get there. Use the story of the next Great Transformation. Write the story of the next Great Transformation. Let’s tell the story of how we want our world to be, how we want our lives to be and what we need to do to get there and to maintain it. Let’s tell the story of the next Great Transformation on which we are embarking.
I’m new to the idea of narratives—of stories, I came up with all science all the time, and so I did what we academics are want to do – I researched it. But I also talked about it with others. The idea of creativity, imagination and intuition kept coming up – all that is okay in fiction, but not in science. At least we rarely, if ever, hear about it in science. We all know that science is fact-based – no place for imagination and intuition. But we also know that’s not exactly true. Only we do not usually say it out loud. I experience imagination and intuition not as creative in some childish way — “Oh, it’s only your imagination” — but as an important aspect of my greatest personal and professional achievements. I realize I run a risk in telling this story….but it’s time to say this out loud. It’s time to grant ourselves permission to embrace creativity in every way. Imagination and intuition are incredibly important parts of everything we do – in science and otherwise. When we pay attention to them, we can learn to appropriately and usefully interpret them. This is a course I want to develop for science majors and especially for graduate students in science: Engaging Intuition and Imagination for Solutions to Confounding Science and Societal Problems.
When we look at the papers at this conference, we see that many of us are working hard to ask the big questions, face the big issues and find creative ways to transform the economy. And I am delighted to see a session on narratives of the new economy later today.
This spring, the USSEE Board of Directors developed an Ecological Economics Agenda for Inquiry to better define the focus of the organization. On behalf of the Board, I invite you take a look at the Agenda and share your thoughts and feelings about it with us.
So, let’s jump into the big issues even more: the complexity-rigor challenge; alternative organizing principles for economics that reflect what we do want; economic transformation to resolve the problems of poverty and unemployment – all within our biophysical limits, respecting human and non-human life. Let’s shift the burden of proof! And use the power of narrative to help in this transformation. Draw on more than just data—weave a tapestry of intellect, imagination, intuition, and data for the future we want. For the present we want.
Finally, take a moment and think beyond what you’re doing these days. Look at the greater system beyond your current focus. Use your head. Use your heart (for more than just to pump the blood through your body) and ask yourself: What do I need to do next to move us toward transformation with a Capital T? What do I need to do? What do I need to let in? What do I need to let go of?
What is your next step as we usher in the next Great Transformation?
The USSEE Board of Directors has developed an “Ecological Economics Agenda for Inquiry,” the result of brainstorming and scenario planning processes undertaken by the Board between April and June, 2013, with a goal to revisit the role of ecological economics as a discipline and specifically the role of the US Society for Ecological Economics (USSEE) in addressing contemporary ecological, social and economic challenges at various scales. The Agenda is intended to set the stage for further dialogue, research and action, and it is created to broaden the scope of the society to foster greater engagement by stakeholders beyond academics. The Board hopes that this agenda will create a more welcoming space for scholars and practitioners from public, private and non-profit entities to come together in building a more just and sustainable human presence on earth. The Agenda will be presented and discussed at the upcoming 7th biennial conference, and your contributions to the dialogue are invited.
US Society for Ecological Economics: Transforming the Economy for a Just and Sustainable World
An Ecological Economics Agenda for Inquiry
This Agenda for Inquiry is the result of brainstorming and scenario planning processes undertaken by USSEE Board of Directors throughout the spring of 2013 and presents a clear direction for further dialogue, research and action. The Agenda has been approved through May 2015 at which time the USSEE Board of Directors will review and revise as needed. The development of this Agenda marks an important step for the USSEE, focusing attention on the economy and the needed transformation to move toward a just and ecologically sustainable society. Current debate among ecological economists and practitioners includes the need to focus more attention to the biophysical foundations of our economic life and to develop new approaches to live within these limits.
Beyond critiquing the likely causes of unjust and unsustainable ways of life, we must articulate the future we desire. The intent of setting this Agenda is to stimulate discussions about which current directions for inquiry and practice are most promising and which we should leave behind and when. The issue of valuation of ecosystem services is a challenging debate exemplary of this very effort. By focusing attention to these important questions, we will generate new conceptions–new imaginings of how we can organize ourselves to sustain life and enhance its quality within biophysical limits.
The current economic system is not able to provide for a just and sustainable future in which both human life and nonhuman life can flourish. Therefore, the focus of the US Society for Ecological Economics is on developing new approaches to understanding our economy and its dependence on the biophysical systems that govern life on Earth. We welcome citizens, practitioners, scholars and artists who would like to work with us to create, debate and promote new paradigms, tools, and messages that will facilitate progress towards justice and sustainability in our communities, our nation, and the world.
- What is the role of markets in a just and sustainable society?
- What changes are needed in our economic system to allow us to resolve the problem of unemployment while staying within biophysical limits?
- What changes are needed in our economic system to allow us to resolve the problems of poverty within biophysical limits?
- How do we learn about biophysical limits before we cross them? How do we adapt our human systems to operate within biophysical limits, given inherent uncertainty and the emergence of novelty?
- How do we understand our place in a just and ecologically sustainable society? With over 7 billion people and ecological decay how do we envision a path to a healthy human ecology (at multiple scales including psychologically, sociologically, spiritually, institutionally, locally, nationally, and globally)? And what approaches, tools and messages are needed at each scale?
- What is the relationship between local movements and foundational change? What is the difference between reform and revolution? National and global change?
The Board of Directors of the U.S. Society for Ecological Economics invites you to submit nominations for the 2013 Herman Daly Award. The award was established in 2003 in honor of one of the visionaries and founders of ecological economics, Herman Daly. The award is designed to recognize outstanding contributions to the field, and acknowledges individuals who have connected ecological economic thinking to practical applications and solutions that are sustainable in scale, equitable in distribution and efficient in allocation. The award is given in conjunction with the 7th biennial conference, to be held June 9-12, 2013 at the University of Vermont in Burlington, Vermont. The award criteria include the following:
- made visionary contributions to the field of ecological economics
- connected ecological economic thinking to practical applications
- created conceptual frameworks and practical solutions to sustainability challenges
- identified policies and processes that advance social and environmental sustainability
- advanced the recognition of scale as an essential part of sustainability
- advanced distributive justice and social consciousness as an essential part of sustainability
- contributed to conservation and the just allocation of resources
Please send nominations to Robert Richardson, Secretary-Treasurer of USSEE (firstname.lastname@example.org), or to any member of the Board. Nominations should include the name, affiliation and contact information of your nominee, and a brief statement describing the nominee’s qualifications for the Herman Daly Award. The deadline for nominations is March 31, 2013. The Board will review all nominations and select the recipient, and the award will be presented at the 2013 conference.
DISCCRS VIII Interdisciplinary Climate Change Research Symposium
October 12-19, 2013
La Foret Conference and Retreat Center (Colorado)
Application Deadline: February 28, 2013
Participation limited to 30 early-career Ph.D. scholars
Airfare and on-site expenses are supported through grants from NSF and NASA
The DISsertations initiative for the advancement of Climate Change ReSearch (DISCCRS, pronounced discourse) hosts symposia for early-career climate change researchers. Our goal is to catalyze international, interdisciplinary collegial networks and foster collaborative interdisciplinary research and dynamic interactions between science and society to enable us to better understand and respond to the myriad challenges posed by climate change.
During the weeklong symposium, 30 competitively selected recent Ph.D. graduates will share their research, engage in discussions with peers, mentors, and funding agency representatives, and hone their teambuilding and communication skills. Most importantly, scholars will depart from the symposium with a collegial peer network that extends across the full range of climate science.
2012 Symposium Report: http://disccrs.org/files/DISCCRS_VII_Symposium_Report.pdf
2012 Symposium Scholars: http://disccrs.org/files/DISCCRS_VII_Symposium_Scholars.pdf
Symposium Eligibility: Ph.D. requirements completed between September 1, 2010 – February 28, 2013 in any field. Applicants should be conducting research relevant to the study of climate change, its impacts, or its societal implications. We encourage applicants from the biological, physical, and social sciences, mathematics, engineering, and other fields. While U.S. citizens and residents have preference, some funds are available for non-U.S. participants.
Symposium Application Instructions: http://disccrs.org/application_instructions
DISCCRS Website: http://disccrs.org