Talk:Ecological economics/Archive 2

Notes on Archive GRB dispute
II | (t - c) 11:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Kept the substantive stuff here. Longrunning dispute over whether to add www.grb.net to EL– good for laughs only.

Green vs Ecological
I think a lot of what you mention is related to people coming here both from the Ecological economics article also the Green economics redirect to here. I think some of the tone you mention would be cleared up by splitting this article and giving Green economics its own page. --Treekids (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Treekids, the post on 'Article Tone' to which you refer was 2006 and editing was done since, not checked if it has been reversed. The Green Economics addition this year (2008) did seem a bit awkward (equated to Ecol Econ in opening) and with bits and pieces elsewhere, I thought as a new development (in some repects) seems more suited to the discussion under History/Development section with clear links to external sites for those interested to follow. I would suggest if this area requires more it be given a section amongst the Topics. Ecol Econ has had a fair share of Green poltical activists involved so I don't see any major division here i.e. need for a seperate page. Ecol econ is however primarily an academic discipline, as noted in intro and not a politcal movement as such. The extent to which the recent Green journal and activities of poltical activist around Oxford, UK are indictive of something substantively different seems too early to say. I would also suggest that unity is better than division and there appears more common cause than difference here. Prof C (talk) 00:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Article tone
Recent (2008) 'vandalism' to the intro, which has been reversed, does raise a more serious question as to whether the tone is too academic and the wording obscure. I think the first few sentences should be more in plain English. Prof C (talk) 01:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is writen as if the field of ecological economics is settled with respect to a number of social and political issues. I don't think that is the case. For example sentences like: "It accepts as a goal the high standard living we enjoy..." and "It rejects the view of energy economics that growth in the energy supply is related directly to well being..." sound too much like the field is unified on these and other points. In fact I contest the claim of the latter since energy economics considers itself a part of ecological economics (or for some, co-extensive with and therefore synonymous).

Additionally, the article stresses sustainability over the actual study of ecological economics. The former concept is a social goal, the latter is a study that will presumably determine if the former is feasible and by what mechanisms it might be achieved. Economics, itself, is the study of wealth, its creation, distribution, etc., for the purpose of understanding the subject, not, necessarily just for telling us how to get more! Only after the political/social decisions for growth and development are taken is the knowledge of economics put into application. The current article reads like these objectives have already been decided and now it is up to the study of ecological economics to produce the result (sustainability). I personally do not feel that is a suitable tone for an encyclopedic article.

Presumed copyright violation removed
I've removed the section "Example of Sustainable Development Policy", as it is word for word identical with a portion of the source given. If the source has been released under the WP:GFDL, or if the Wikipedia version is the original one (the second seems unlikely, as the soure is a draft research paper), please provide evidence of this before restoring the section. Bishonen | talk 05:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Additions and suggestions
I just added a link to the The International Society for Ecological Economists (IEEE) and their journal, which seems to be the main academic journal on the subject. I wasn't signed in so I thought I better write a note of explanation here. I do think this page could be improved. More references perhaps and a clearer articulation of the key concepts/goals but it would have to recognise that within the field there is considerable divergence of opinion.

The key originators of the subject have been mentioned, Boulding, Costanza, Georgescu-Roegen and Daly.

Here are some other academics that I know about that could be mentioned:

Nordhaus, W Solow, R. M. Norgaard, R. B. Pearce, D. W. and R.K. Turner Wackernagel, M., & William R. Weizsäcker, E., Amory B. L., & L. Hunter Lovins

I tried to rank them according to their view from weak sustainability to strong sustainability. I think a discussion of the substitutability of natural and human-made capital would be an important addition to this page, and definitions of the concepts of 'strong' and 'weak' sustainability.

Hope this helps.

Bill. (Grad student at the School of Resource Management, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, BC).

Billtubbs 16:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Bill, you are right about the need to discuss about substitutability and weak-strong sustainability. Some useful references for that are:

AppleJuggler 05:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Daly, H. 1997. Beyond Growth: The Economics of Sustainable Development. Boston: Beacon Press
 * Daly, H. 1997. Georgescu-Roegen versus Solow/Stiglitz, Ecological Economics 22(3): 261–266.
 * Solow, R.M. 1997. Reply: Georgescu-Roegen versus Solow/Stiglitz, Ecological Economics 22:(3) 267–268.
 * Tisdell, C. 1997. Capital/natural resource substitution: the debate of Georgescu-Roegen (through Daly) with Solow/Stiglitz. Ecological Economics 22(3) 289-291.
 * Ayres, R.U. 2007. On the practical limits of substitution. Ecological Economics 61: 115-128.
 * Hediger, W. 1999. Reconciling 'weak' and 'strong' sustainability. International Journal of Social Economics 26(7/8/9): 1120-1144.

I've discovered a good description of the Weak vs Strong Sustainability definitions in the section on Sustainability so we don't need one here after all. Maybe just a link to this section. I'll see what I can do.

Billtubbs 18:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

How to be an Ecological Economist is an approachable little essay. II | (t -c) 13:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Now I can't find the description of Weak vs Strong Sustainability in the section onSustainability that I was referring to above. Perhaps it has been removed. The sustainability page is a well written and covers the broader issues of sustainability so perhaps, after all, the weak vs. strong sustainability definition should be here in the ecological economics section. It is more of an academic concept after all. I will provide a brief summary using some of the articles suggested by AppleJuggler above which I happen to have copies of. —Precedingunsigned comment added by Billtubbs (talk • contribs) 03:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Energy accounting
Added an energy accounting and balance section with lots of interesting outside article linksskip sievert (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You appear to have a conflict of interest, so you'll want to be careful. I think you've given the energy accounting undue weight; I'm not sure it is a big deal in ecological economics, especially since you put that energy accounting section right under the energy economics section. I suggest you put the energy accounting stuff inside the energy economics article. II  | (t - c) 18:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No... I do not have a conflict of interest, and if you please... refrain from being accusatory in regards to material you perhaps had no reference point toward or for until now. Please read the article links. Energy in many ways is the basis of ecological economics.. and why it has not been a major part of this article before is unknown but is an oversight... please read thishttp://www.eoearth.org/article/Biophysical_economics Biophysical economics - Encyclopedia of Earth.... also thishttp://telstar.ote.cmu.edu/environ/m3/s3/05account.shtml Environmental Decision Making, Science, and Technology... and thishttp://ecen.com/eee9/ecoterme.htm ECONOMY AND THERMODYNAMICS. skip sievert (talk) 18:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Rewrote part of the beginning
I found the beginning of the article unfocused and almost impossible to understand as written. I have condensed.. rephrased and refocused it to the point now that I think it is pretty readable and understandable and accurate to the subject. I have connected a bunch of other wiki article information links like earth science and added one citation... and plan to add more reference articles also. Found a great link to include as a citation ref. for the beginning http://www.eoearth.org/by/Topic/Ecological%20economics Article Topic: ecological economics - Encyclopedia of Earth skip sievert(talk) 00:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

External link
perhaps http://kvdp.blogspot.com may be added as a external link (it contains juridical national measures countries can take). Note that at the external links there's already a blog so no reason my blog can't be added too.

Thanks, 81.246.189.46 (talk) 08:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed the other Google blog you referenced, which should have not been there, and please do not list the one above or it will be taken off. Blogs in general are not considered to be used on wiki skip sievert (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Economics side bar on this article
The economics side bar with the business economic portal on it is not really appropriate for this article, or rather antithetical to it. Ecological economics distinguishes itself from neoclassical economics primarily by its assertion that the economy is an embedded within an environmental system. Ecology deals with the energy and matter transactions of life and the Earth, and the human economy is by definition contained within this system. In contrast, neoclassical economics has historically ignored the environment at best relegating it to be a subset of the human economy. Economic theory, as encapsulated in general equilibrium models, then assume both an infinite resource base and also infinite waste sinks with no feedbacks; in simpler terms, resources never run out and pollution never occurs. This allows neoclassical economics to claim theoretically that infinite economic growth is both possible and desirable.

This topic is not related to mainstream economic thought as represented by the current side bar in general on economics. skip sievert (talk) 03:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you think the link to this Ecological economics article shuld be removed from the sidebar as well? C RETOG 8(t/c) 03:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Skip, it is one of the main items listed on the sidebar. If the sidebar is not appropriate for the article, than I think it would follow that this article is not appropriate for the sidebar.   I don't feel that either are the case, but that could be an option.  You've made your case on the template and the economics article regarding the portal - that should be the place for the dispute (perhaps the WikiProject would be another).  If you gain enough support to remove the portal link than fine, but trying to ban it from certain articles because of the portal link does not seem like an appropriate action.   Morphh   (talk) 3:36, 02 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The side bar is fine for most economic articles. It carries baggage for an article like this one. Why? That is another discussion. It is a pity in my view that the business portal which is unrelated to economics except by someones view of constructing it that way, is on the economics side bar. This article is not a business article. It is an economics article though. This points out the flaw of connecting the two, (my opinion) skip sievert(talk) 03:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * My question above was rhetorical, to make the point that it seems wrong to include a link to this article in the sidebar while also saying the sidebar is inappropriate for this article. On the other hand, perhaps there is a more appropriate sidebar for this article (as I think theEconomic systems sidebar is more appropriate for some articles). But it was not only rhetorical. I don't yet understand ecological economics well--if (in spite of the name) it's less economics and more physical science, then perhaps it should be removed from the sidebar.C RETOG 8(t/c) 12:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't understand it that well either, but it does have a JEL class (perhaps that's how it ended up on the sidebar). Morphh   (talk) 12:47, 02 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I included it because it was one of the JEL classifications. Which makes me think the sidebar is appropriate. C RETOG 8(t/c) 14:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I feel that ecological economics should be in the side bar as is now because it is an aspect of economics... It is directly related to economics... energy economics and Econo-physics and thermoeconomics etc. Also it is related to energy accounting and Non-market economics and possibly Post scarcity economics as well. So... probably a science side bar for this particular article is in order. That would be a good idea.. and if there is a general one, either my self or one of you, could safely put it on this one (my view). Another compromise idea would be to put a science bar ... and the economics bar on second. There is not really a money system focus in ecological economics though.. so that may not be a good idea.., it uses Geo science as its basis and thermodynamics.. How ever, environmental economics... where the side bar is a perfect focus, and appropriate for that article... although I still think the business portal is not appropriate to the economics side bar.


 * For you two if interested in gaining more info on this subject of energy economics... I can suggest this: http://www.eoearth.org/article/Biophysical_economics  You may want to book mark that one and also check out the connectors from it... for more well written and presented info.skip sievert (talk) 13:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The sidebar definitely belongs in this article, and ecological economics definitely belongs in the sidebar. The JEL class is enough. Much of Skip's reasoning is focused around avoiding the Business & Economics Portal, for some strange reason. II  | (t


 * General comment: Here is a grouping of portals that could be added to the economics bar... instead of having just one out side the sphere one... namely business.. Singling out a business related portal on this particular article seems antithetical really to the subject as ecology is the bottom line as regards this subject. I would think a big improvement in the economics side bar could be made by having a section related to other portals.. of which business would or could also be one. I would then not object to the economics side bar at all here, as it would be balanced by other information. skip sievert (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * II, We're discussing the portal link on thetemplate talk if you would like to voice your opinion. Thanks  Morphh   (talk) 18:23, 02 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how others will feel about this, but just as I think a separate Economic systems sidebar is appropriate for some articles, I imagine a Sustainability (or something similar) sidebar might be appropriate for some articles, including this one. For the moment, I'm putting the economics sidebar back. C RETOG 8(t/c) 21:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I took it off (economics sidebar). It may be being over linked to articles not so fitting for it. Regardless the side bar has issues being worked through and is under discussion for being or not being used for this particular article. In the mean time... while it is under discussion lets leave it off. I did put a sustainability diagram concept on this one for now. skip sievert (talk) 22:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we're approaching consensus (if we don't have it already) that it belongs, so I figured the default if it's still under debate is to put it in. It is still being refined, though, so I can be a little more patient. C RETOG 8(t/c) 22:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Overview and biophysical economics
The "Overview" section has a line about ecological economics, and then jumps to biophysical economics without describing what the relationship is.C RETOG 8(t/c) 12:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Another thought... Why even have an overview? That's what the lead is for - per WP:LEAD, we should expand it anyway.  Dump the overview section and merge it with the lead. Morphh   (talk) 13:01, 02 September 2008 (UTC)

POV and mainstream economics
The overall tone of the article approaches an ecological economics manifesto. It's completely appropriate for the article to describe the attitudes, motivations, and methods of ecological economists, but it shouldn't read (as it does) as an argument for those attitudes and motivations.

It's also not very helpfully written. My knowledge of ecological economics is almost nil--reading this article is the most research I've done. And I'm still not sure what it's about. I'm left with the feeling that I have to follow a lot of the links to really understand it. That might be fine for me, personally, but it's not good for an article.

Adding to the POV problems is the fact that the article repeatedly argues against a characiture of neoclassical economics--which I'm going to treat as an alternative way of saying "mainstream economics" because I can never keep the details of schools of thought straight. Some of it can probably be remedied by providing sources--"Fred the ecological economist argues neoclassical economics ignores the fact that trees are pretty." But even then the charicatures seem to me quite wrong, and might need to have a "neoclassical response". And there's other places where something seems wrong but might just be badly phrased. Here's some examples:


 * "Ecological economics inherits some mathematical assumptions from neoclassical economics in that it will employ aggregate measures..." I think mainstream economics is pretty silent on whether to employ aggregated or disaggregated measures of anything--decisions like that are part of fitting the analysis to the particular reality, rather than part of the underlying economic approach.


 * "It however generally rejects the neoclassical assumption that local differences in the means of production or extraction method are just another externality, since living ecosystems are impossible to repay or reproduce and often extraordinarily expensive to replace or augment." I'm not sure I understand what either clause is supposed to be saying. I think that mainstream economists would describe local differences in the means of production and extraction as part of the (local) production function. I don't immediately see how that's an externality (never mind "just another" externality).


 * "The major and most obvious difference is that neoclassical economics is wholly unconcerned with the proportion of the supply chain absorbed by transport costs and also unconcerned with the issues in alienation of property rights when consuming goods from far away." Mainstream economics is always concerned with any costs, and so treat transport costs like any other cost. The phrasing of the above implies this isn't the case. Is it instead trying to say that ecological economics is directly concerned with the ratio of (transport cost)/(total cost)? I don't know if that's what it's trying to say, but if so, it would also help to explain why. The second part about "alienation of property rights" might well be true, but isn't clear enough to decide.


 * "Effectively, the instructional capital of the genomes is undervalued by both classical and neoclassical means which would view the rainforest primarily as a source of wood, oil/tar and perhaps food." Mainstream economics would view the rainforest primarily as a resource for whatever of economic value can be extracted from it--wood, medicine, DNA, tourism, carbon reduction, or the utility of knowing there's unsullied wilderness. It's true that mainstream economics would tend to treat it as something valuable only to the extent that humans can "consume" that value, which might be an attitudinal difference reflected somewhere. But mainsteam economics would say that if it's more valuable to get medicine or carbon reduction or whatever, then that's what should happen.


 * "Well-being in ecological economics is also differentiated from welfare as found in mainstream economics and the 'new welfare economics' from the 1930s which informs resource and environmental economics. This entails a limited preference utilitarian conception of value i.e., Nature is valuable to our economies, that is because people will pay for its services such as clean air, clean water, encounters with wilderness, etc." This isn't at all clear. Is "this" ecologicial economics, new welfare economics or mainstream economics that "entails a limited..."


 * "Economic theory, as encapsulated in general equilibrium models, then assume both an infinite resource base and also infinite waste sinks with no feedbacks; in simpler terms, resources never run out and pollution never occurs. This allows neoclassical economics to claim theoretically that infinite economic growth is both possible and desirable." The above is so far-out that it needs to be attributed to someone. And being far-out, the following paragraph doesn't follow.


 * "Reducing human bodies to financial values is a necessary part of every branch of economics" Nope.


 * "Economics, in principle, assumes that conflict is reduced by agreeing on voluntary contractual relations and prices instead of simply fighting or coercing or tricking others into providing goods or services." I think most economists would agree with that, but I don't think it's a general assumption of economics. If sourcing is provided, I could change my mind.


 * "Ecosystems are no different than other bodies economically except insofar as they are far less replaceable than typical labour or commodities." Besides the fact that this needs to be attributed, "Fred says that ecosystems are no different...", this statement isn't clear. Is it supposed to imply that ecosystems should enter into voluntary contractual relations?


 * "Ecological economics is founded upon the view that the NCE assumption that environmental and community costs and benefits are mutually canceling "externalities" is not warranted." I'm not aware of any such assumption.


 * "The assumptions behind future discounting, which assume that future goods will be cheaper than present goods..." I'll check the source on this. In mainstream economics (and excluding finance), "future discounting" means that most people prefer something now to the same thing later. This might have implications for cost of future goods, but not necessarily.


 * "Concerning these externalities, Paul Hawken argues that the only reason why goods produced unsustainably are usually cheaper than goods produced sustainably is due to a hidden subsidy, paid by the non monetarised human environment, community or future generations[26]." To me, this reads as a very mainstream economic explanation.

Trying to explain the above problems to myself, I can come up with two things. C RETOG 8(t/c) 14:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) A lot of the characterization of mainstream economics is not really about the field, assumptions, or methods of mainstream economics, but rather about how modern global capitalism works,  and then attributing its perceived failings to the field of study.
 * 2) It appears that a big part of ecological economics is explicit attitude rather than pure science. Mainstream economics aims to be pure science, but like any field has implicit attitude. I can understand wanting to contrast these attitudes, but it must be done carefully, and with attribution. It's hard to find concrete references within mainstream economics for its attitude simply because it is implicit. However, being implicit, it's also not fixed in stone. Many mainstream economists appear to me to echo the attitude of ecological economists (from my ignorant standpoint), while applying mainstream economic analysis.


 * I completely agree that much of what is on here is not fair to either the mainstream or the ecological economists. I'm going to try and cut through out of the rhetoric if I can get motivated. I probably don't know a lot more than you, but I've borrowed the ecological-leaningEnvironmental Economics undergrad textbook by Jonathan M. Harris. Also, if anyone needs articles from Ecological Economics, I have access to everything from 1995 onwards. Just send me an email.


 * What seems to be one of the biggest differences is in discount rates. I've heard an argument from an ecological economist that if, as we might expect, natural capital and goods continue to decline, and manufactured capital and goods continues to increase, marginal analysis might conclude that a high discount rate on environmental damage is untenable. This is related to the whole intergenerational equity issue. It is an approach which uses mainstream tools, but is nevertheless not accepted by eminent mainstream environmental economists like Nordhaus. Stern's discount rate would likely be considered acceptable by most ecological economists.


 * The whole concept of growth at around 2% (which justifies at least that discount rate –I don't see how one could possibly justify a 6-8% discount rate for these things) for the foreseeable future is also attacked by ecological economists using mainstream tools –there are diminishing marginal returns to capital and perhaps even technological innovation. Natural capital is often expended in economic growth; there are analyses in Ecological Economics which argue that China's real economic growth has been negative when natural capital depreciation is factored in. The assumption that growth must continue at such a rate is a gamble, and it could turn out like the assumption among many economists that housing prices do not decline. Besides, the rate at which environmental destruction is happening may be highly unpredictable and nonlinear if certain technologies are not used carefully. Or, because we are not as forward-looking as economists generally think, the consequences of predictable problems might be catastrophic (as the effect of the falling water tables could be). Another argument ispath dependence. The idea is that if we switch our technological path by forcing economic innovation through either government funds or taxation, "sustainable" energy could be just as viable. Of course, this stuff is happening right now ... II  | (t -c) 06:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sustainability article -- help!
A major rewrite is underway for the Sustainability entry, and we sure could use help there. Anyone who has an interest in the topic is welcome to pitch in.V.B. (talk) 19:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Current economic system unattainable
Perhaps the article should include info explaining that the current economy is unattainable. I refer to theWWF-research. Please include in article.

Thanks, 81.244.204.44 (talk) 18:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Major changes to article
Please discuss making major language changes to the article such as thishttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ecological_economics&diff=261481990&oldid=261414082that appear to be based on language whims... and not really clarifying the article... also adding multiple fact tags to information that is sourced and cited at the end of the paragraph is not a good idea. skip sievert (talk) 17:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This article has a good framework of ideas but IMO the language is unnecessarily complex and prohibitive for the reader; there is a lack of clarity in the expression and flow of ideas, and there are many uncited assertions that require referencing - there is much room for improvement. I feel it is necessary to indicate here that, in line with WP policy and guidelines I intend to edit "boldly" to improve the content and raise the "rating" of the article. This might involve substantial change to the article. I do not wish to offend those who have contributed to current content, so I encourage vigorous discussion of the editing and the possibility of a collaborative effort to avoid any potential there might be for edit wars (reverting changes etc.). As a start to this project and in order to encourage participation from as many editors as possible it will help to establish a "work outline" and to discuss the "content". This would seem a good way forward which I can initiate shortly.Granitethighs (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Please do not make the edits like the prior one http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ecological_economics&diff=261481990&oldid=261414082 . This article is currently rated B class. Changing the language leading up to material that is already referenced can make a problem for the material that is being cited and ref`d. Also fact tagging as you have done is not appropriate... because as a B grade article that is not an issue. The edit confused the language and confused then the sourcing... and mixed in other information that is not directly related.


 * The article is mostly complete and without major issues, but requires some further work to reach Good Article standards.


 * Changing the article language leading up to ref/citations as your edit did, can make a problem for the material. In other words it is counterproductive to rewrite parts of sentences and change their meanings, and keep current references. Please reread B class criteria.


 * 1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited.


 * 2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.


 * The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.


 * 3. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it certainly need not be "brilliant". The Manual of Style need not be followed rigorously.


 * 4. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.


 * 5. The article presents its content in an appropriately accessible way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible. skip sievert (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Lead
To avoid editing reversions and editing wars it might be best to work here for a while rather than simply "being bold". What do you think? Here are suggested edits for the first para.

Ecological economics (green economics, sustainability economics) is a transdisciplinary field of academic research that aims to addresses the interdependence of between human economies and natural ecosystems. It is distinguished from environmental economics by its connection to outside disciplines within the natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities and its focus on the "scale" conundrum, or how to operate an economy within the ecological constraints of earth's natural resources. According to ecological economist Malte Faber, ecological economics is defined by its focus on nature, justice, and time. Issues of intergenerational equity, irreversibility of environmental change, uncertainty of long-term outcomes, and sustainable development guide ecological economic analysis and valuation.[1]


 * There is a redirect of green economics to this page. The expression "green economics" is gathering momentum (the title of books etc.). It is good to indicate to readers that this is an alternative term for this discipline; the same applies to "sustainability economics".
 * Interdependence implies "between" - this is not grammatical (a tautology). Suggest keeping the language as simple as possible as proposed.
 * In this opening paragraph there are three different assertions: a definition of the field; a distinction between itself and another discipline; a second definition of the field that is cited. The first two different assertions need citations. If citation [1] covers all three then this is far from evident and needs clarification.
 * The expression "scale conundrum" is not clear and requires explanation, deletion, or re-phrasing.
 * I can understand your "ownership" of this article but, in spite of your claims and the fact that it is B-class, there is ample room for productive editing to improve the expression, content, and general standard of this article.


 * These edits have been suggested in good faith and should either be adopted or discussed, not simply reverted as before. Granitethighs (talk) 02:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't support your revision and although I'm glad you're taking an interest in the topic and want to discuss it here, I thought your fact tags were poorly placed. In the nature section, for example, a simple search for "source function" ecological or "sink function" ecological yields good sources. I added that section based on [6] (Harris), and he covers those concepts. For the green/sustainability economics, you would need a source. The opening statement is fairly self-explanatory from reading a couple sources. In other cases, you seem to want to play fast and loose with what the sources say. Changing "the identity of the field is fragile" to "the acceptance of the field is fragile" is completely unacceptable, because that's not what the source says. Identity != acceptance. Did you even read [1]? Changing "aims to address" to "addresses" is problematic because it's not clear that ecological economicsdoes address these issues.


 * I agree that the article could use work, but I don't think you're targeting the righ tareas. The scale conundrum is explained as it is introduced: it is the ability to support a growing population and economy with limited natural resources. II  | (t -c) 04:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the appraisal by Imperfectly Informed. I think the projected edits done in the article destroyed the current focus and objectivity and sourcing of the article frankly, and that is why I gave the previous message... which you did not comment on much as to content. The article is focused and cited as a good B article should be. I see no value in your edits that you did previously... confusing the language and rephrasing things that do not need to be rephrased, as you did previously .. will not make the article better. This subject is much written about... and well known for what it is.


 * The rating specifically means the article needs a few aspects of content and style, to be addressed, and expert knowledge is always nice. The inclusion of supporting materials should also be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the manual of style and related style guidelines. In other words peppering with fact tags... inappropriately, when it is sourced well and the info goes to good refs is a bad idea, and changing the direction (meaning) of the language... so that the sources no longer apply is a bad idea. skip sievert (talk) 04:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback II. My original edits were totally reverted wholesale - which wasn't very helpful. However, it has encouraged me to go a little at a time, starting with the first paragraph. I am not sure I follow your comments which do not seem to be focused on my points above, but on the original reverted edits and the nature section (not considered above). The following are good references to "Green Economics" and "Sustainability Economics": .  I assume your lack of comment on complex terms and grammar is an agreement with the suggested edits. Thanks for your comments on my former edits.

Granitethighs (talk) 05:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Skip, I am suggesting specific edits. If you do not like them could you address them individually please - to make a generalised comment such as yours is to effectively close off any further editing which is hardly what WP is all about. Thanks. Allso I see ProfC (see Article Tone above) also thinks the article could be written more in plain English. Also that concerns about Green Economics have also been expressed - surely it deserves a mention or a separate page? Granitethighs (talk) 05:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Not really sure what to say to you. Did you read the detailed information provided in the critique above? Ecological economics is a specific thing with a specific meaning and much literature and application of this term is being used in society and the article is sourced very well. It probably is not a good idea to water the information down by calling it Green economics or calling it by an article title like Sustainability economics, change the language, or rejigger the language to the citations. As far as editing the article ... thoughtful edits are always appreciated... but you have not commented back on the critique of what you inserted into the article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ecological_economics&diff=261481990&oldid=261414082 so really the actual discussion of your first edit was not addressed by you.


 * Plain English??... the article seems to be in plain enough English... and that is pretty much the reason you were reverted... because the edits you did changed the focus and language meaning to the point of causing confusion and disruption of understanding to the information. skip sievert (talk) 05:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sadly you clearly do not understand the editing. Let me explain. Putting "Green Economics" and "Sustainability Economics" in brackets indicates to the reader that these are alternative terms for what is essentially "Ecological Economics". This is useful (and cited if necessary, see above) information. Perhaps an alternative (as suggested above by another editor) would be to have separate articles - would that be an option? No one is suggesting changing the title or watering down its definition, please remain open-minded rather than instantly resistant to suggestions. There are many examples of difficult language - do you really want me to quote them all? Lets just start with the one in the opening paragraph - the "scale conundrum" which would be totally meaningless to a casual reader of the article. What I said remains true ... if, as I think II is implying, the meaning is made explicit after the words then the words themselves become redundant. This is simply efficient editing, you can save the valuable space they occupy. Once again please address the actual edits under discussion. My points are specific, direct and explicit. Please respond in the sam manner to save extended unnecessary debate. Granitethighs (talk) 06:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you II. I now know that I can at least get a fair hearing.Granitethighs (talk) 08:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Green Economics" and "Sustainability Economics" in brackets indicates to the reader that these are alternative terms for what is essentially "Ecological Economics". end quote... No, I think you are confusing different subjects or terms. Ecological economics does not connect toother terms for the same thing, as you are saying... or at least you have not presented any actual thing we could look at, that claims so. Ecological economics is a well known grouping on its own. It would be misleading or untrue to connect them as the same thing or another name for the same thing of Green economics. If you are claiming to be able to cite that these terms are alternative terms for each other... then we need to see the proof in black and white, and with a couple of mainstream and known sources.


 * Also, when you edit here by saying things like... Sadly you clearly do not understand the editing. ... you are not elevating the discussion... and I view this as a subtle yet real personal attack or attempt of humiliation, and this type of interaction is not called for. I have had similar problems interacting positively and constructively here Sustainability science with the article you created. So, I urge you to depersonalize things here and just go by the facts of presenting edits and alternatives on their own merits. skip sievert (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me express this another way. I have quickly read this talk page and see there is discussion about green economics and whether it is "separate" from ecological economics. My suggestion: if they are essentially the same thing then green economics should get a mention in this article because people will be looking for it after having heard or read about it. If they are not the same thing then that is surely a good argument for a separate article on green economics is it not? What do you think? I will do my best to avoid what you call personal attacks, it was not intended as such. Let me say that I spent a lot of time trying to constructively edit this page only to have you completely revert everything I did. THAT to me is a personal attack, and an unreasonable one at that since another editor subsequently accepted several of the changes I made. Granitethighs (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * They're not the same thing. No offense, but it seems you have a tendency to start talking and editing about things you don't really know about. It was apparent from your first edit that you hadn't even read Milte Farber's essay. You can read about the history of ecological economics here. The wholeISEE encyclopedia has some decent freely available articles. If ecological economics identity is fragile, then green economics identity is nonexistent. Green economics appears to be a grassroots campaign by green activists, and is, as Skip said, more similar to green syndicalism than ecological economics. It may be worth adding a section here, or starting an article, but we can't do it half-cocked based on vague impressions. We'd have to find an article which explicitly discussed them. Go check out those books or find an online article first. You could also start an article about green economics. I did the AfD for the previous one because it was a piece of nonsensical crap, and actually 90% of it had been copied. II | (t - c) 22:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * II you are correct, I have not read Farber's essay. I have good ecological and editing credentials but am not so strong on the economics - but that will not be true for long. Thanks for your assistance, I am familiar with some of Constanzas work. Perhaps being an "economic outsider" is an advantage as it allows me to read the article with a "fresh" eye and I think there is room for improvement along the lines I have outlined. Also I think it is important to take each edit on its merit, which you (but not others) have done, and I thank you for that. I think a full-scale revert of edits is not a good idea. Thank you for addressing my question - I shall be looking more closely into green economics and will be back to help edit this article.Granitethighs (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Ecological Economics journal
If anyone wants access to articles fromEconomics let me know. I have access to 1995-present. Abstracts are freely browsable. II | (t - c) 04:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In the ecological economics article, do the books or articles brought up by an editor draw a parallel between green economics and ecological economics? Probably not in a meaningful way that I am aware of. It looks more tied into something like Green syndicalism. TheEnvironmental technology article maybe touches on 'green' economics ?? and is green economics an actual discipline of study and application,? or some kind of a political grouping?skip sievert (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I also see a problem developing here with Granitethighs interjecting opinions instead of factual material... here is a quote from the Sustainability science talk page... and I believe it is telling as to some of the recent edits on this page. Quote, A number of points. Firstly, the topics you question are well known and well documented, it is just that you are unfamiliar with them, as I am unfamiliar with Ecological economics and Environmental economics which sound to me like recent and very minor adjuncts to their main field of economics. The distinction between the two must surely be highly dubious and, if obvious at all, obvious only to a few experts in the field - so we have here an excellent case for the merging of articles. The article itself says: The identity of ecological economics as a field has been described as fragile, with no generally accepted theoretical framework and a knowledge structure which is not clearly defined (this is referenced). If ecological economics does not warrant the title "field" then environmental economics surely has even less credibility. In addition, are these articles similar in content - I have not read them in detail, if they are, then the case would be totally compelling if it is not already. end quote Granitethings


 * Another quote from the Sustainability science talk page... I suspect that a case can be mounted for Ecological economics and Environmental economics being neologisms and a stronger case for these two articles being merged. Perhaps someone could look into this, I have more important things to do. Granitethighs (talk) 01:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This presents to me some problems of perhaps an editor unfamiliar or not so much aware of different aspects of these issues aggressively making what could be termed unhelpful changes in the ecological economics article currently. skip sievert (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * For the context of these remarks see the discussion on the Sustainability Science talk page. Skip is clouding the discussion (and the less said about his editing history the better). IMO there is only one question - are the edits that are being made, worthy of incorporation? Each should be taken on its own merit. Granitethighs (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user.  Wikipedia encourages a positive online community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways.  Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia.skip sievert (talk) 04:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have added a reference to sustainability economics so that people are aware of the distinction between ecological economics and sustainability economics. This may be an issue when they are exploring related topics. (By the way Skip, I assume the above refers to yourself completely reverting a suite of edits made by me in good faith, followed by your personal attack above?) Granitethighs (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You are creating ill will posts like the above. Good will is sought after as a medium of dialogue on Wikipedia. I was referring to stuff like calling other editors nameshttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sustainability_science&diff=prev&oldid=255758800Having a civil working climate on Wikipedia is important. Your edits were reverted for the reasons previously given. I did not make a personal attack on you ever... and saying I have... is a personal attack. Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack. Reverting someone for just cause is not a personal attack, though you say you consider that it is.


 * Let me say that I spent a lot of time trying to constructively edit this page only to have you completely revert everything I did. THAT to me is a personal attack, and an unreasonable one at that since another editor subsequently accepted several of the changes I made. Granitethighs (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You do not seem to appreciate the guidelines on conduct on Wikipedia... and the civility aspects of editing... and the idea that every and all, are subject to scrutiny and change, as to their edits. skip sievert (talk) 01:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Major redoing of lead
By an editor, is probably not called for and seems to cloud the clear information in the lead directly related to the subject... Ecological economics. By expanding the information to include what it is not or what it is tangentially connected to in elaborate ways... it brings the information out of focus as to what it actually is.

Start of info removed A further distinction is sometimes made between ecological economics and sustainability economics, the former being "essentially about market failures, the costs of pollution and pollution abatement, and the economics of regulation. Sustainability economics includes the problem of maintaining economic growth, while reducing pollution and/or its impacts, with special attention to the linked problems of energy supply (not to mention the supply other exhaustible resources), climate change and – most urgently – fossil fuel consumption. There is a need for integration of resource and environmental economics under a new rubric, sustainability economics." End of info removed

This is the section removed. Does it set up a false dichotomy of ecological economics..?. or a confusing one... is it important or a good idea to explain something in a lead by introducing abstracted information... which seems not so focused as to explaining the actual subject here?skip sievert (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the addition is too long-winded for the lead. Certainly could go in the body. Perhaps "related fields" or something. II | (t -c) 01:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe... but that might also confuse the article also which currently has a very nice presentation, so I think that may not be a good idea given it seems like the information is not so founded and may be a little confusing as to accuracy also. I was thinking there was aSustainability economics article on wiki... to add to the See also section.. but no... none exists. This concept seems to be more of a way of referring or mentioning a general idea, that is covered in other ways as to actual fields of study like thermoeconomicseconophysics Bioeconomics Natural resource economics Energy economics etc. ... and something that authors of papers or books are saying more as a term or phrase for thinking about things... rather than an actual discipline. Mistaking articles on subjects maybe for actual fields then? I think the article currently does a good job of mentioning the actual side elements and main elements of economic field in regard to ecological economics.


 * Also it explains itself really well in the ethics section. ''Ecological economics is typically viewed as economics for sustainable development, -Soderbaum P. (2004).Politics and Ideology in Ecological Economics. Internet Encyclopaedia of Ecological Economics,etc... - skip sievert (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Skip. Thanks for opening up a discussion rather than simply deleting. I appreciate IIs suggestion which makes sense to me. Excuse my presumption but some observations and a couple of suggestions. I have now read Malte Faber and must say I am not too impressed. I found it a bit strong on "feeling" (nothing wrong with that -a lot of talk about fragility, wisdom, appreciation of nature, human qualities required of ecological economists and so on) but I think his key elements of nature, justice and time are not a good jumping off point for readers. They are too general IMO, even though he expands on them. I found the Constanza and Daly 1987 article much more factually illuminating and was surprised it did not warrant a mention especially as it seemed to me like some sort of locus classicus - wasn't this where modern ecological economics as a collective discipline virtually got started in that volume of ecological modelling, after the work of individuals like Boulding, Daly & GR?  IMO the discussion in a number of early papers  of  economic "justice" (intergenerational equity etc.) would now be regarded as discussion about "sustainability" . There is no suggestion that this is a special field or discipline but it is an expression that is likely to gain currency ('scuse pun). I have a couple of suggestions:
 * A clearer statement of the core goals of ecological economics in simple terms for the reader (my vote would be for someone other than Malte Faber). I know you will say it is all in there but it is not a clear and easy read, IMO. The sort of thing I'm thinking of would be along the lines of ecological economics deals with questions of : effects of unconstrained economic growth; a consideration of economic externalities and their role within market structures; a more ethical economics that takes greater account of social and environmental consequences of market behaviour. Now you will say I've missed things out, demonstrated a lack of knowledge of the subject etc. but it is the more straightforward language and presentation that I am driving at.
 * In the light of what I have said I think that ecological economics is going to focus far more on sustainability - the content might not change but the wording probably will become more sustainability orientated. The passage you have deleted is by resepected authors in the field and from respected sources and is evidence for my p.o.v. I agree that it is too long-winded but I think the idea of "sustainability economics" is important and should be in the article (even if reduced) for interested readers, along with the two citations: where you put it is up to you.  (see for example www.sustainabilityeconomics.de).
 * P.S. You could have a section on related disciplines which could cover green economics, sustainability economics and all the other related fields you mention

Granitethighs (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not think so... for the reasons given. It may well be a neologism in the way you are presenting it also as to a stand alone term. It is more a phrase of topic or referring to something and not a separate thing. You may want to study the article here in depth as to its current information and links. What you are referring to when you say above


 * the content might not change but the wording probably will become more sustainability orientated In the light of what I have said I think that ecological economics is going to focus far more on sustainability.


 * Huh? As editors here we are not notable but grunt workers collating information in most cases to present creatively and thoughtfully and accurately, and neutrally. Sometimes experts come in, but mostly it is just people trying to follow guidelines... and even topic experts do that also. Your statement does not jive to me as to what is currently in the article and what you may think is in the article. Ecological economics is all about sustainability. That is the whole primary focus of it. That is what makes it contrast with Environmental economics... because it is more centered on things like Natural capital and, at least on the surface is not wrapped up as much in money economics. So... I am not so sure that the subject is being understood here as to focus. Ecological economics of all the mainstream disciplines connected comes close to not relying on ordinary economics to make choices... although it also does obviously do to a degree.


 * Also... Have you really looked at this article P.S. You could have a section on related disciplines which could cover green economics, sustainability economics and all the other related fields you mention.end quote above.. it contains information on Green economics in several places, and gets into these other ideas very well... so again... you had best read the article before jumping in with major edits. Adding things should improve the focus and scope.  skip sievert (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Skip, no offence intended but you seem to have a preoccupation with neologisms; what I am suggesting has absolutely nothing to do with neologisms. Let me re-phrase what I said before, because nothing you say above addresses my points.
 * * First, my turn for a home truth about editing. Wikipedia does the world community a great service if it presents knowledge in a simple, clear and stimulating manner. A large proportion of readers will be looking up terms and expressions they are unsure of, or about which they require more information. The term "sustainability economics" is being quite widely used in the literature now (see in latest edition of Ecol. Econ. for example "A matter of opinion - how ecological and neoclassical environmental economists think about sustainability and economics". Ecol. Econ. pp. 594-604 (2009).) Readers of WP might wish to know the status of such a term - is it a "field", "discipline" a special form of ecological economics etc. That is all. And that is why it should be in the article.
 * I did not say that the various items should be included, what I was suggesting was that to assist the reader the various associated disciplines could be dealt with in a small separate section. That would, for example, make space in the lead by relieving it of environmental economics and green economics. Again, that is all.
 * Finally, there is clearly an unproductive communication problem between us Skip. Could I ask that my contributions be discussed by II? No offence but, I need feedback from someone other than you. Granitethighs (talk) 03:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Please do not personalize editing on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a blog. You have not addressed things presented on the talk page as presented above your post here. You have edited the article somewhat recklessly in my opinion.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DUCK#The_duck_test and http://en.wikipedia.org andhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DEMOCRACY#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy - I do think the article was not improved with your edits to it... and seriously suggest that you are not so much engaged in the topic to the extent that you are unaware of the actual information in the article and seem confused about the information. I have tried to engage you to reflect on your editing here. That is all. skip sievert (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Green Economics Institute
What's wrong with the Green Economics Institute? Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see why the link, added by user62.49.164.65 should be considered "spamming of a pro democracy Forum/blo" as User:Skipsievert suggests. The NGO, founded and run by renowned economist Miriam Kennet seems to be fine to me. --spitzl (talk) 10:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks like a promotional political progressive blog/forum that is using Wikipedia to spam itself as a corporate entity. You may consider this person a 'renowned' economist... but her page on Wikipedia looks very mono and promo sourced to her own information. It also had a link to a kind of self publishing company http://www.inderscience.com/index.php where it looks like she publishes much of her own material. Also her article does not look particularly sourced.


 * Excerpt from the link... '' If you require in house training for your group or department or company to help you plan your business, or charity or government work, please email us and we will come along and train your team. Our courses are very lively interactive, multilevel and extremely well received and enjoyable and can be run in most countries and most locations, and most languages.


 * In 2008 we provided training in Poland, the UK Treasury. In 2009 we are planning and lecturing at Brussels University, Campinas University Brazil and South China Normal University, Guandong, China and many more businesses, government departments, and Universities. We have a team of 5000 specialists in all aspects of green economics. Our courses are modular, and you can select the issues you find most pressing. Courses can run for 1 or two days and can suit all incomes. Please email us at: info@greeneconomicsinstitute.eu for more details. End quote.skip sievert (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have a major problem with including a link to the Green Economics Institute, but I don't think it's very informative. It seems to have an agenda parallel to the Ecological Economics association, although with significantly less prestige, history, expertise, and information availability. I wouldn't say an inderscience journal is "self-published", but it's disappointing that the journal is not available free. It's not prestigious so very few libraries are likely to have it. WorldCat shows that only 5 libraries have subscriptions to the journal . Thus, it's effectively useless unless you're willing to shell out big bucks or wait a few months for a (not very green) print interlibrary loan. I can't understand why spitzl would describe Miriam Kennet as world-renowned.  II  | (t - c) 08:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice clean up of the information links I.I. - I suppose that journal (inderscience journal) is peer reviewed in a sense... but not really, because it appears that the Green Economics Institute is also its own publisher as 'inderscience'... hence rather self serving and closed loop within its own context of participants. I delved into the Miriam Kennet article a little bit,... where having that link might make sense, but it could use some further scrutiny as to sourcing/citations, and general presentation. skip sievert (talk) 16:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Inderscience publishes a lot of journals. I don't think it's right to characterize a group of academics who've founded their own institute, publishing through a mainstream publisher, as "self-publishing". Under that definition Ecological Economics would be self-published. II  | (t -c) 20:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That could be well be. But, I noticed in both the Miriam Kennet article and this one before, that the link was in the article over and over... so it seemed like a promotion for the link also. Like you said though Ecological Economics has the prestige, history, expertise, and information availability. skip sievert (talk) 21:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Returned lead as was
It was simple and effective and covered the info before. The presentation was not improved with recent additional phrasing. A link or ref. note is not really needed to prove anything in the lead. Also the phrasing that was put in was changed several times by the editor that put it in... so was it actually representing the ref/note? The lead is better with simple language and basic direction. skip sievert (talk) 01:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I would like other people to comment on these changes please.Granitethighs (talk) 02:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Granitethighs (talk) 02:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The changes added an authoritative reference to the opening paragraph (there was none before).
 * The changes gave a clear distinction between ecological and environmental economics (this was not there before - the wording was abstruse)
 * The additional reference to green economics was an up-to-date book summarising attitudes and approaches to green economics. A very useful reference (totallyunnecessary to remove it).
 * The wording about green economics, though briefer, stated in more precise terms the difference between green economics and ecological economics.
 * The new wording links to ideas now prevalent in the fields of sustainability and sustainable development with which ecological economics has strong associations.


 * Please don't play fast and loose with sources. Whenever you cite a book, you need a page number. Also, you changed the sentence to green economics and that does not seem supported by the source as I see it.


 * "Fast and loose with sources" is an over-reaction to omitted page numbers. Omitting the fine detail is hardly surprising since every contribution I have made to this article has been simply reverted. Both the citations were guiding the reader to the books in general not to specific references within them - but pages xxvi and 4-5 to be precise in the Daly and Farley. The Daley and Farley reference does not appear in this article and this seems to be a major omission, this alone is a valuable contribution IMO - which also casts doubt on the people "minding" the article who clearly do not want to engage in progressing the article beyond its present state i.e. "ownership" issues appear to be at work. Perhaps you could be more constructive and tackle the points that have been made above please?Granitethighs (talk) 02:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologize, when I said fast and loose I was referring to your edit in relation green economics. That distinction is not clear to me in the first source, which I added. I don't buy the idea that sustainability and sustainable development are "now prevalent" in ecological economics -- these are what ecological economics was founded upon. And no offense, but it's a bit crazy to say I'm not interested in improving this article when I've added much of the content to the body and all you've done is tinkered with the lead. Please assume good faith; I have nothing against you and no problem with incorporating that book into the article. II | (t - c) 04:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * `which also casts doubt on the people "minding" the article who clearly do not want to engage in progressing the article beyond its present state i.e. "ownership" issues appear to be at work.` Not really. Your edits were objectively looked at and discussed. The actual edits were discussed. Also you did change the language that referred to the ref/quotes.skip sievert (talk) 03:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The edits were not discussed other than in the most cursory way. The individual points raised above were not discussed at all. I do not understand the changing of language point you make - isn't that what editing is? Every change I have ever made has been immediately reverted. Clearly "ownership" is a problem. Granitethighs (talk) 03:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * We're still discussing the edits. I do think Skip is aggressive and borderline uncivil at times and I appreciate your efforts to introduce a new source, but these were controversial edits. It seems to me that the difference between green economics and ecological economics is research groups. Green economics is more of a vague umbrella term which has been adopted by a research group with significantly less prestige than the eco-economics groups. It might be better to document the distinction in the body and then summarize in the lead. Also, you need to provide a page number for Scott Cato's book. I don't think green economics is more politically applied. I think it's 1) an umbrella term, or a term used by people who haven't heard of eco-economics and 2) a term adopted by a research group competing with the eco-economics group. II  | (t - c) 04:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. I am aware that there are "green economics" researchers and groups here and there. What I was driving at was that in Australia (for example, where i am) people talk about "green economics" in a generic way, like "green politics" and "the greens". That was my point -anyway - whatever fits - this goes back some time to when i simply put in green economics as a synonym of eco-economicsd only to have it immediately reverted as irrelevant. I thought it had sufficient currency as to warrant a mention. Granitethighs (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Malte Faber
I would like to suggest an alternative to Malte Faber's vision of ecological economics. IMO his view is too general and diffuse to be of much use to readers of the article. I think authors like Daly have more precise and important things to say about the subject. Daly expresses the view that while Neoclassical economics is concerned primarily with efficient allocation, in ecological economics optimal scale replaces growth as a goal, followed by fair distribution and effcieint allocation - in that order. It discusses policies that help the economy reach an optimal scale. This to me seems more robust than the Faber quote. What do others think?Granitethighs (talk) 02:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Faber's discussion is more broad, which is justified given that Eco-Economics has also put forward things like positional analysis. Daly (you provided no page number) seems, from what you've done to the lead, to be focusing on the economy as subsystem of ecology. Yet you contradicted that by saying that environmental economics does the same just with less focus. That's not really true; environmental economics does not do the same. II | (t - c) 02:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Who, precisely, has put forward "positional analysis"? And why should that obliterate what Daly has published? I do not understand your point above. Daly regards ecological economics as treating eco-economics as a subsystem of earth systems. Environmental economics treats the economy as a system in itself, not a subsystem - he is explicit about this and there is no contradiction in what I said. With due respect - have you read  his work - and this book in particular?  Granitethighs (talk) 02:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're asking who put forward positional analysis, then you haven't read the article. "In contrast environmental economics, though also connected to disciplines within thenatural sciences and exploring how to operate an economy within the ecological constraints of earth's natural resources, treats the economic system as a whole and not a subsystem." (my italics) Perhaps Daly does say this, but it sounds contradictory or at least poorly-worded. Anyway, like I said, you need to provide page numbers. Faber is easily verifiable, cogent, and broad in scope. II  | (t - c) 03:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The page numbers you are asking about are given in the discussion about the lead above. I think I see what you are driving at now - in which case there is a contradiction between what was previously written (uncited) in the article, and Daly's view (which I have cited - with the page numbers given above). Perhaps you would care to cast an opinion on these two contradictory views as to where the emphasis should be (or whatever)? Granitethighs(talk) 04:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, looking at Daly and Farley's book in Google previews, it seems entirely consistent with Farber. Daly says: 1) eco-eoconomics is under construction without an accepted group of techniques 2) he calls for economics to return to a "moral philosophy explicitly directed toward raising the quality of life of this and future generations", ect. Ultimately, you seem to have just made things more convoluted. The contradiction I mention above is in saying that environmental economics is also focused upon making the economy work within ecological constraints. I don't buy that; it's not a focus of environmental economics. It's a factor, but relatively minor, and certainly not to the extent of eco-economics -- so it doesn't need to be said. II  | (t - c) 04:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The green economics page numbers are pp. 5-9 in a section titled "What is green economics?". On the issue above I think we are at cross purposes. Students and others will be keen to sort out the distinction between ecological economics and environmental economics (as far as is possible), me included. After reading assorted major authors I read this WP article and it did not seem to agree with what I had read - or at least it was not really clear to me in what it said. I thought I would take Daly as a leading figure and selected his text book on the topic in which he defines the two disciplines in relation to one-another (which helps) both in the text and in his glossary at the end. In the glossary IMO the key phrases are, for eco econ,  "the economy is conceived as a subsystem of the earth system" and in env. econ "the economic system is the whole, and not a subsystem of the containing and sustaining global ecosystem".  To me this spells out a much clearer distinction than the (uncited) distinction currently in the article: it also seems more in tune with other authors. Is there still a problem? Granitethighs (talk) 04:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I tweaked it a bit to include that part, which is discussed at further length in the last paragraph. Anyone reading the lead to ecological economics and comparing it to the lead of environmental economics should see the major differences. They seem quite clear to me, and I can't understand how anyone would be confused. For example, what you read at the beginning was this: "It is distinguished from environmental economics by its connection to disciplines within the natural sciences and its focus on how to operate an economy within the ecological constraints of earth's natural resources.". How in the world was this not clear? Ecological economists are often ecologists and biologists rather than economists. Environmental economics is largely about reflecting the demands of the people rather than pure sustainability. As you read further down the lead, it should have become more and more clear that ecological economics was quite different. What wasn't clear? I'm forced to guess that you didn't even read the lead (even after all these months) or else you would have read about positional analysis in the third paragraph. II  | (t - c) 05:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I wont waste any more of your time. All I was saying was that the casual reader could confront two choices.


 * Choice 1.
 * Which says some thing along the lines of:


 * Ecological economics is distinguished from environmental economics by its close connection to disciplines within the natural sciences,and  its focus on how to operate an  economy within the ecological constraints of earth's natural resources

This is fine as far as it goes but doesn't say what env econ is about. so you need something like th following in the other article:


 * Environmental Economics undertakes theoretical or empirical studies of the economic effects of national or local environmental policies around the world [...]. Particular issues include the costs and benefits of alternative environmental policies to deal with air pollution, water quality, toxic substances, solid waste, and global warming.


 * Choice 2:


 * Ecological economics regards the economy as a subsystem of the earth system while environmental economics treats the economic system as the whole, and not a subsystem of the containing and sustaining global ecosystem.

I prefer the latter - I think it does a better job: it is simple, short, succinct, and clear, making the point immediately in the article. It is true that all is made clear by reading both articles or getting as far as paragraph 7 in eco econ. And, yes, there is also a long and reasonable discussion of the distinction in the environmental economics article - but that is not what I'am saying. I am asking for a simple clear statement of the difference right at the beginning (where it is most useful) and I think this does the trick in a respectable way. Sorry to be so frustrating. Granitethighs (talk) 05:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if I came across harshly in my last response, and please feel free to continue to raise concerns that you have with understanding the text. I think people should go to environmental economics if they want a fuller description of what it is about, and that this lead should focus on ecological economics. Choice 2 already seems to be incorporated in this article; implicit in the fact that ecological economics treats the economy as a subsystem is the statement that environmental economics does not. II  | (t -c) 06:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Implicit in the article is that environmental economics does not have a "close connection to disciplines within the natural sciences,and its focus on how to operate an economy within the ecological constraints of earth's natural resources". Which is neither clear nor correct. Thanks for the sentiments though. Granitethighs (talk) 06:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If that first statement was changed to "closer", it would certainly be correct; as it is, it is close enough. And the second is also correct; environmental economics does not focus upon the ecological constraints to the extent that ecological economics does. For example, one of the foremost environmental economists, William Nordhaus, thinks carbon emissions should not really be cut, and this is the mainstream position among environmental economists. However, you're right that it's a rather controversial statement which should probably be tweaked. Ecological economics focuses upon preserving natural resources. That seems more accurate. Or maybe we should say it takes a more extreme position on protecting the environment, given the potential irreversibility of its destruction. I'll try to get around to fixing that. II | (t - c) 06:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * How about:
 * Ecological economics is a transdisciplinary field of academic research that aims to address the interdependence of human economies and natural ecosystems. It is distinguished from environmental economics by its closer connection to disciplines within the natural sciences and its focus on operating an economy within the ecological constraints of earth's natural resources. Ecological economics regards the economy as a subsystem of the earth system while environmental economics treats the economic system as the whole, and not a subsystem of the containing and sustaining global ecosystem of which it is a part.
 * My only concern now would be that although there are implications about what environmental economics is not - that is not really a satisfactory way of dealing with this issue. Much better to say what environmental economics is. (Logically, after all, it is not my left toe). That was my other point - why do we have to drive people to the other article when we can easily solve their difficulties immediately? Thanks - I'll try to be less controversial in future. Granitethighs (talk) 07:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Lead definition
''Ecological economics is a transdisciplinary field of academic research that aims to address the interdependence of human economies and natural ecosystems. It is distinguished from environmental economics by its close connection to disciplines within the natural sciences, its focus on how to operate an economy within the ecological constraints of earth's natural resources, and its treatment of the economy as a subsystem of the ecosystem.'' This is the original and it seems fine. It is not filigreed or stretched out or hard to understand... and the lead is good as in simple and understandable.

I do not think 'closer' helps in understanding anything and is not worth changing to. Also it therefore, as a part of the phrasing, is not needed either. It is wordy without making for clearer meaning. The current lead does a simple and good job. There is no improvement with the suggested edit. It complicates the information and that is un encyclopedic. I used this link to source the opening lead http://www.eoearth.org/article/Environmental_and_ecological_economicsas it thrashes these ideas back and forth in a number of different ways... and draws nice distinctions... in a well written way as to the two different things. Yes these two different things are often referred to together because of the similar but different aspects of each... and the disconnect in thinking between the two of them. I hope this article link will help to clear this up at the very beginning of the article now. An excerpt below.

Ecological Economics

Ecological economists are not members of the community of mainstream economists and their work has been routinely dismissed or ignored by mainstream economists. The primary objective of the ecological economists is to enlarge the framework of the neoclassical economic paradigm to include scientifically valid measures of the environmental costs of economic activities. Scholarship in this discipline is replete with carefully developed and well documented reasons why the mathematical theories used by mainstream economists should include these costs and numerous demonstrations of how this could be accomplished. But the fact that there has been virtually no dialogue between ecological economists and mainstream economists clearly indicates that the former is saying something that the latter simply does not wish to entertain or understand.

Part of what mainstream economists clearly do not wish to confront is that there is no basis for assuming that the mathematical theories used in their profession are scientific. There is, however, a much more fundamental reason why neoclassical economists have been unwilling to engage in this dialogue. Because ecological economists are normally familiar with research done in environmental science, they know that assumptions about economic reality in neoclassical economics are anything but sacrosanct. However, the presumption that mainstream economists would be willing to revise these assumptions was unrealistic because they are foundational to the mathematical theories used by these economists. The large problem here is that any proposed economic solutions to environmental problems that require even a slight modification of these assumptions would threaten to undermine the efficacy of the mathematical theories. This is the case because the presumed efficacy of these theories is entirely dependent on the belief that the assumptions are valid.http://www.eoearth.org/article/Environmental_and_ecological_economics - skip sievert (talk) 15:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

What is being discussed is the adequacy of the lead in drawing the distinction between ecological and environmental economics. At present it defines environmental economics by saying what environmental economics is not (which is, in itself, not very satisfactory). It also does this in an ambiguous way by implying that environmental economics does not have a close connection with the natural sciences - a debatable point. The proposal is that the lead immediately state what environmental economics is to make the distinction clear. I am not sure about using citations in the lead but think it would be beneficial to cite Daly & Farley here for those who (inevitably) would wish to dispute any definitions given. The lack of a citation for the opening definition of ecological economics does not help credibility of the article IMO.

Current:
 * Ecological economics is a field of academic research that aims to address the interdependence of human economies and natural ecosystems. It is distinguished from environmental economics by its close connection to disciplines within thenatural sciences, its focus on how to operate an economy within the ecological constraints of earth's natural resources, and its treatment of the economy as a subsystem of the ecosystem.

Proposed:
 * Ecological economics is a transdisciplinary field of academic research that aims to address the interdependence of human economies and natural ecosystems. It is distinguished from environmental economics by its closer connection to disciplines within the natural sciences and its focus on an economics operating within the ecological constraints of earth's natural resources. Ecological economics regards the economy as a subsystem of the earth system while environmental economics treats the economic system as the whole, and not a subsystem of the containing and sustaining global ecosystem.(Daly & Farley).

Please note: I am not saying the article does not make these distinctions in one place or another. I am suggesting that the lead is the place to be absolutely lucid and that the use of a few more words would clear up a potential source of ambiguity while, at the same time, providing the security of a citation that expresses the view of leaders in the field. Granitethighs (talk) 23:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That change is not needed and actually muddies up the distinction already made in the lead which adequetly explains the distinction now with the added link/ref/citation to an article that explains really well the situation vis a vis the two thingshttp://www.eoearth.org/article/Environmental_and_ecological_economics - What is being discussed is the adequacy of the lead in drawing the distinction between ecological and environmental economics. At present it defines environmental economics by saying what environmental economics is not (which is, in itself, not very satisfactory). It also does this in an ambiguous way by implying that environmental economics does not have a close connection with the natural sciences - a debatable point. This really is not an issue, or a debatable point. It does not have a close connection with the natural sciences. That is apparent in all the literature. It uses the abstract concepts of value in regard to money as its base point. So... I do not think it is a needed change. skip sievert (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * We will just have to agree to disagree on this. IMO the distinction is not clear and environmental economics is not adequately defined. A citation is good but expecting someone to look up the citation when a few words of explanation will do the trick is not good editing. Because environmental economics deals with environmental matters it clearly has close association with the natural sciences so this statement is actually misleading. Anyone else have a view? Granitethighs (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Diagram and the ecological economics paradigm
The diagram used with this article is one that generally associated with Sustainable Development. The views of ecological economists conform more to the "bullseye" diagram as shown in the Sustainability article (as a contrast). This view is clearly expressed by Daly also illustrated as a preferred choice by Scott Cato (pg. 37) and others. I suggest the diagram is replaced with one more consistent with ecological ecconomics principles. Incidentally, the Sustainable Development diagram would be more in keeping with environmental economics.Granitethighs (talk) 04:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Economics does not mean money economics always. Thermoeconomics is also just as important. It is a mistake maybe to make the distinction you are making about what is what. Ecological economics is dealing more with Biophysical economics. The diagram does not need changing.skip sievert (talk) 05:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Daly defines ecological economics as "...the union of economics and ecology, with the economy conceived as a subsystem of the earth ecosystem ..." in his text book called Ecological Economics: Principles and Applications. He uses this definition in direct contrast to his definition of ecological economics. It would be hard to find or create words that better express the "bullseye" representation of the relationship of economics to the planet expressed by a leading exponent of ecological economics. You do not really seem interested in the improvement of the article but prefer to make yourself deliberately obstructive. What on earth does your comment above have to do with the two diagrams under discussion? The case here is watertight. The diagram I suggest is without doubt an improvement on the current one as a visual expression of ecological economics vs environmental economics as defined by Daly. The current diagram clearly needs replacing with one that more closely reflects the approach taken by ecological economics. Once again, anyone else have a view on this?Granitethighs (talk) 06:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but it seems you have a tendency to start talking and editing about things you don't really know about. It was apparent from your first edit. For starters if interested you may want to read this. You have not made any comment on it... and it was given as a point of understanding http://www.eoearth.org/article/Environmental_and_ecological_economics - Please do not start again with the personal attacks. It is pointless. Discuss information... you may want to read this also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:HARASS - skip sievert (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

After thinking about this a bit, it's probably appropriate to switch "It is distinguished from environmental economics by its close connection to disciplines within the natural sciences, its focus on how to operate an economy within the ecological constraints of earth's natural resources, and its treatment of the economy as a subsystem of the ecosystem" to "It is distinguished from environmental economics by its treatment of the economy as a subsystem of the ecosystem". This is necessary in order to remove POV. If we can find sources saying that ecological economists have more natural scientists, then we can add that as well, but its main proponents, aside from Costanza, are trained economists. The comments by Malte Farber following it help to flesh out more details. We can't define environmental economics here until we have good sources saying what it is, and I don't think we should define it anyway. People can go to that page for that definition. II | (t -c) 23:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Some key points

 * The key issue is whether editing suggestions have merit.
 * I have made many suggestions none of which has received any support from you and most have simply been reverted.
 * Specifically, now, I have drawn attention to Herman Daly's distinction between ecological and environmental economics through definitions he has given in a text book on ecological economics. His definitions state that: Ecological economics regards the economy as a subsystem of the earth system while environmental economics treats the economic system as the whole, and not a subsystem of the containing and sustaining global ecosystem. I have suggested that the current diagrammatic representation of ecological economics in the article be replaced by one more in keeping with intent and description of the discipline as defined by Daly (one, if not the, leading authority in the field).
 * Your response has been that you have a tendency to start talking and editing about things you don't really know about
 * In the light of the fact that you are, one way or another, ignoring my editing suggestions I think it is time to ask for an outside opinion. The merit of the discussion about Daly, the content of the Lead and the selection of Diagram can all be assessed by someone else. I have inserted copies of the two diagrams for comparison and will be calling for arbitration.



Granitethighs (talk) 23:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that there are some problems with the definition in the lead, although I see mainly as a problem of POV (environmental economists would say they are closely connected to the natural sciences and sustainability too). That will have to be fixed. Are you talking aboutthis diagram? I have no problem with switching that one in. Also, could we please stick to a single section unless a new topic is being raised? Please be patient Granite. You and Skip can argue forever and it won't matter. So what is your question in regard to those pictures? The left seems more appropriate, although I don't know if I agree with it theoretically. II  | (t -c) 23:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Neither diagram is that good or that connected but the one being used now (on the left) is more viable as to the use here. You did not comment on the link I gave you G.T.- Believe it or not... Daly is not an end or be all. The link I gave you had all kinds of other connectors with all kinds of concepts and ideas. You seem to be on a crusade here for the truth of presenting this one view... definition. Really, Ecological economics goes back to Frederick Soddy perhaps, and before that probably back to the Physiocrats in a sense. We actually do not need either one of these diagrams to explain anything as neither does really explain anything... but only give a general idea of some aspects. That is also how it is that the first one is better... it has more things to consider in it. Also I mentioned before thatEconomics does not mean money always... but can mean Energy economics or Biophysical economics.


 * His definitions state that: Ecological economics regards the economy as a subsystem of the earth system while environmental economics treats the economic system as the whole, and not a subsystem of the containing and sustaining global ecosystem ... Yes... well it already says that, more or less in the lead and other people have defined it pretty much the same way. His version is not sacro-sanct. The current version says the same thing in clearer language...Ecological economics is a transdisciplinary field of academic research that aims to address the interdependence of human economies and natural ecosystems. It is distinguished from environmental economics by its close connection to disciplines within the natural sciences, its focus on how to operate an economy within the ecological constraints of earth's natural resources, and its treatment of the economy as a subsystem of the ecosystem.


 * Look at the whole article. Trying to stitch in this and that pov, is not worthwhile when the article as a whole is very good... and gets points across and covers the information. Most of your argument here is moot because the information you are talking about is in the article currently... and it is clear and well thought out. Also with the new citation in the lead area it is even more clear than it washttp://www.eoearth.org/article/Environmental_and_ecological_economics - Have you read the article as a whole? It gets the info across very well. skip sievert(talk) 23:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In the article Daly is quoted: Since the scale of theglobal economy has grown dangerously large relative to the fixed size of the ecosystem, this economy is sustainable, says Daly, only if it does not erode thecarrying capacity of the ecosystem. Consequently, he is critical of mainstream economists for assuming that environmental resources and sinks are infinite relative to the scale of the economy and that decisions about allocation merely move natural resources between alternative uses. The unfortunate result, says Daly, is that scale is not viewed as a constraint and economic policies encourage growth that cannot be sustained by the ecosystem. This position by Daly is expressed through the diagram on the right. Granitethighs (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what you mean about "sections" - we are discussiong diagrams here with key points as a subsection of that. At the top I state "The diagram used with this article is one that generally associated with Sustainable Development. The views of ecological economists conform more to the "bullseye" diagram as shown in the Sustainability article (as a contrast). This view is clearly expressed by Daly also illustrated as a preferred choice by Scott Cato (pg. 37) and others. I suggest the diagram is replaced with one more consistent with ecological ecconomics principles. Incidentally, the Sustainable Development diagram would be more in keeping with environmental economics." Scott Cato (green economist) actually compares the two diagrams stating that the one on the "right" is an accurate representation of the green economics position (which, surely is close to the ecological economics position). And Daly reinforces this view through the wording of his definitions of the two disciplines Ecological economics regards the economy as a subsystem of the earth system while environmental economics treats the economic system as the whole, and not a subsystem of the containing and sustaining global ecosystem. The suggestion is that the diagram on the right replace the diagram on the left at the head of this article as a more accurate diagrammatic representation of the view of ecological economics (as expressed for example by Daly and Scott Cato).Granitethighs (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * To avoid descending into an edit war could I have the considered view of II (or other parties interested in this article) in regard to the use of the "bullseye" diagram as a representation of ecological economics in preference to the current one, viewed by this ediitor as nearer to the position of environmental economics. See discussion above.Granitethighs (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

For II
To indicate why I think the bullseye is the best diagram for ecological economics let me quote Daly in full - page. 15 of his text book on Ecological Economics (which is not quoted in the article - why not, it is excellent?). "Conventional economics [environmental economics] sees the entire macroeconomy as the whole. To the extent that nature or the environemnt are considered at all, they are thought of as parts or sectors of the macroeconomy - forests, fisheries, grasslands, mines, wells ecotourist sites and so on. Ecological economics, by contrast, envisions the macroeconomy as part of a larger enveloping and sustaining Whole - namely the Earth, its atmosphere and its ecosystems." This statement expresses well what other ecological economists have said as well and expressed through a bullseye diagram, which is the one I suggest this article would be more accurate to follow. Is this not a fair suggestion? Granitethighs(talk) 11:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Your preferred diagram may reflect the economy as a subsystem but still be less interesting than the other one, which reflects eco-econ's interest in social equity. I tend to like the current Venn diagram more but I don't have a strong position so maybe you're best off asking someone else. I don't think it's worth edit-warring over. Perhaps you could put your preferred diagram somewhere else in the article. II  | (t -c) 17:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * II, one last try because i think you have missed the point here (sorry, I did promise to be quiet – but this is definitely the last attempt). What we are talking about in relation to the diagram is the depiction of “weak sustainability” and “strong sustainability”. I suggest googling images for “strong sustainability” (or both for that matter). Ecological economics is clearly in the “strong” camp – environmental economics the “weak” camp. No offence but are you aware of this distinction because it is both basic and very important for this article and its graphic depiction which (needless to say) I think is, at present, mistaken. I am mentioning this because you have treated my question as a matter of “taste” – and you like the Venn diagram. What I am pointing out is that this is not a matter of taste but fundamental to the nature of the content of the article and a long debate about weak and strong sustainability. There is no doubt that ecological economics, for the reasons I have discussed before, falls into the “strong” camp and should be depicted accordingly. Granitethighs(talk) 06:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't buy the argument that strong sustainability is exactly pictorial, or at least that it is reflected in this picture. Make an argument that your preferred picture demonstrates strong sustainability better than the Venn diagram. It's interesting that you remark on how important the difference between strong and weak sustainability is when sustainability does not discuss the difference. [http://umwethik.botanik.uni-greifswald.de/booklet/8_strong_sustainability.pdf THE CASE FOR

STRONG SUSTAINABILITY] is not all that clear, although it basically says strong sustainability means keeping all natural resources we have left. That has no relationship to your preferred diagram, which is just making an abstract point (and one that I don't necessarily agree with, since I'm not sure that society > economy). II | (t -c) 07:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Try:
 * 


 * 


 * 


 * 


 * 


 * 

Granitethighs (talk) 13:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There really is not a connection to the topic and the U.N. information link you gave. The U.N. collates info... and makes opinions that are directed and controlled politically, and are not science based. A suggestion would be to go to this link given below... take some time and read about Ecological economics and Environmental economics. These are both scientific/educational concepts.


 * Also the sources you listed contain a couple of blogs, that are not good sources for information. Anyone can write what they want on them.. they are not science or science based... at all. This is good informationhttp://www.eoearth.org/article/Environmental_and_ecological_economics
 * It really is about the subject. Neither diagram is great but the one that is on there with more information rather than less is better than your proposal, and I fail to see how changing to your proposed diagram would be of benefit to the article. skip sievert(talk) 17:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * A few points and comments:


 * I read your recommended article when you first mentioned it a long time ago - also those recommended by II - and much much more. The most recent citation in this article you recommend is year 2000 and this explains a lot. Things have moved on.


 * The article is informative but does not address the matter under discussion


 * Skip, it is ironic that you prefer a diagram that emanated essentially from the UN and more mainstream economics


 * I have to move on – good luck with the article guys.


 * Granitethighs (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Energy economics is not always associated with money. The word 'economics' can also be used as in biophysical economics. skip sievert (talk) 02:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Market Quota System Scannell paper
Google scholar search doesn't turn up the paper mentioned inthis edit. To me that implies at least that it's being given undue weight, but maybe there's something I'm missing.C RETOG 8(t/c) 02:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Change title to "Ecological economics (Eco-economics)"
I propose we change the title of this article to "Ecological economics (Eco-economics)". Also, in the body of the article change "ecological economics" to "eco-economics" to make the article more streamlined. The term eco-economics appears to be widespread. What do people think?Citizen-of-wiki (talk) 01:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't agree at all since ecological economists (or economical ecologistsnot a joke) intend to make the distinction clear between their field and other "eco-friendly" terms... And by the way, "eco" sounds more like "economics" than "ecological" in people's minds. The term "eco-eco" is only used by people in the field and would be confused by the public at large. So your proposal would only work if adding at least one more letter to make the distinction between "ecol" and "econ". Anyway, if we do so, others will later propose to merge "eco-economics" (or "ecol-economics") with "environmental economics" coming once again back to the old debate... Let's keep it the way it is, please. Thanks.Ledjazz (talk) 10:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Add here or carbon offsets or ... ?
99.181.143.157 (talk) 06:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Forest Carbon Offsets: Challenges in Measuring, Monitoring and Verifying by Roger Sedjo and Molly Macauley in July-August 2012 Environment magazine.