This response to David
Orton's critique of 'natural capitalism' (which I crossposted from the deepeco
list) came from Amory Lovins (Rocky Mountain Institute).
This is an area we've only
touched on here. I'd like to do more. It would be interesting to get
Cutler/Cleveland to review the Lovins et al book, if anyone can arrange
that!
Mark
-----Original Message-----If you've read the book, I fear it wasn't as clear as we hoped. Although my coauthors and I do believe (based on extensive and exciting experience with actual practitioners in the private sector) that corporations can be important engines of the transition toward sustainability, the position you describe is that of environmental economics. It is completely contrary to the position of our book, which is that of ecological economics. The book's actual argument is that industrial capitalism is unnatural -- because it defies its own logic by liquidating and not valuing its largest source of capital, namely nature -- but it does not suggest this problem can be solved by pricing and internalizing nature. Rather, it suggests fundamental changes in business that behave as if nature (and people) were properly valued. I do not disagree that proper value includes intrinsic as well as utilitarian elements. After all, how could we, even in principle, assess the utilitarian value of ecosystem services we don't understand and can't reproduce? The proper value of nature must be pretty close to infinity.
From: Amory B. Lovins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 24 August 2000 06:14
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Fwd: Fw: [CrashList] FW: David Orton: A fundamental dilemma
I hope this clarification is helpful. You may post it on the listserv (from which it was forwarded to me) if you wish. I think the book's title is not best interpreted as "Capitalism Is Natural" (the opposite of what the text explains) or "Making Capitalism Look Natural by Painting it Green" but as "The '-Ism' of Natural Capital" -- or, as the new Chinese edition puts it, "Ideology of Natural Capital."
Best wishes -- ABL
> The latest "offering," to encourage activists to
> continue working with and not in fundamental opposition to
> this society, is to be found in the 1999 book _Natural
> Capitalism_, by Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins, and L. Hunter
> Lovins. This book, by its title, suggests that capitalism
> is "natural", and that Nature can be treated within a
> capitalist framework. The authors see the solutions to the
> environmental crisis as bringing Nature within this
> accounting framework. This assumes that forests, seas, wild
> animals, etc. have "prices," not, as in deep ecology,
> intrinsic values. Also, that the inherent growth/profit/
> consume- oriented capitalist economic model should be worked
> with, and not opposed as fundamentally anti-ecological. The
> authors aim to show through their many examples that
> "resources" (I do not myself use this term) can be saved,
> more profits can be made, growth can continue, and employment
> can increase if we start "costing" Nature. This is the
> ultimate anthropocentrism!
>
> There are lots of interesting examples in this book, of
> waste being eliminated and more profits being made. The book
> also speaks of "human capitalism", although this is a
> secondary focus, where "responsible government" is combined
> with "vital entrepreneurship". Curitiba in Brazil, is used as
> an example of this human capitalism. _Natural Capitalism_
> acknowledges that natural capital is rapidly declining and
> becoming a limiting factor on continued growth. Increasing
> population is taken for granted by the authors. Generally in
> this book, there is a much more progressive view of
> capitalism, in alleged harmony with Nature and with a social
> conscience. So this is against Thatcherism or Reaganism. But
> the fundamental questions remain for the activists' dilemma.
> Can one reform capitalism? Is it here forever? Or do we work
> from the position that we must create an alternative?
>
