A Poverty of Reason: Sustainable Development and Economic Growth

by Wilfred Beckerman

Book Overview

In this detailed economic investigation of sustainable development, a noted professor of economics argues that many of the alarms commonly sounded by environmentalists are, in fact, unfounded, and... This description may be from another edition of this product.

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0945999852
• ISBN13: 9780945999850
• Release Date: September 2002
• Publisher: Independent Institute
• Length: 112 Pages
• Weight: 1.05 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.3" x 6.8" x 8.6"

Customer Reviews

amazing book

this book uses fundamental economic principles and strong logic to make its arguments against the so-called "sustainable development". It highlights why human greed is our ultimate saviour. hey, this is why economics works... It comes to terms with the imperfections of life.

A Poverty of Reason; Sustainable Development and Economic Growth

Will economic growth deplete the natural resources on which it depends? Are we in danger of running out of energy sources? Will global warming bring widespread devastation on the planet? Does unbridled economic growth threaten the balance of nature? Looking at the evidence on these questions, Oxford University economist Wildred Beckerman finds that many of these fears are unfounded. While billions of people around the world suffer under appalling environmental conditions, such as a lack of clean water and sanitation, these problems are primarily caused by poverty, not unsustainable development. Despite the fact that so many are touting the wisdom of "sustainable development" as though its meaning and desirability were an established fact, there is no widespread agreement over its meaning, and its desirability is too often not subjected to scientific, economic, and philosophical scrutiny. The author points out in his introduction to the book that support for sustainable development is based on a confusion about its ethical implications and on a flagrant disregard of the relevant factual evidence. The popularity of sustainable development is founded on two indefensible propositions, according to the author: Economic growth will soon come up against the limits of resource availability. Sustainable development represents the moral high ground. It is argued that action is required in order to reduce to "sustainable" levels the rate at which resources are used, which, Beckerman argues, is an impossible task unless we were to stop using some resources completely. Also, he asserts, the risk to the human race from climate change is greatly exaggerated. Sustainable development's place in the moral high ground is questioned, as there are few coherent reasons to believe that sustainable development is an ethically superior goal. Chapter one focuses on two questions: What exactly does sustainable development mean? What is so good about it? The World Commission on Environment and Development defines the term as "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." Beckerman contends that this criterios is not very helpful, and for a number of reasons. First, since not every need of the current generation is being met, why should future generations be any different? Furthermore, he reasons that people at different points in time or at different income levels or with different cultural or national backgrounds differ about the importance they attach to different needs. Also, this injunction leaves no room for trade-offs. If it is true that future generations will face serious environmental problems, how many of the needs and wants of the current generation are to be sacrificed in order to help future generations meet their needs? Do we eve know what these needs might be? Another concept of sustainable development relates to the conservation of plant and animal species. What

Misunderstanding Beckerman's Purpose -- Response to Balfour

Though it is unorthodox to do so, I believe I need to respond to Mr. Balfour's review because he appears to misunderstand the purpose of Prof. Beckerman's book as well as the substance of the environmental idea that Beckerman is challenging.Beckerman is criticizing the notion of "sustainability" -- that the planet's development rate cannot be sustained in the future because resources will not be extractable at a rate that would keep up with future demand. Hence, sustainability isn't an aesthetic argument, but an economic one. Balfour's criticism that Beckerman does not consider the aesthetic arguments for environmentalism is misplaced because that is not Beckerman's project. Balfour's comments thus are akin to criticizing a military history book on Napoleonic tactics for not discussing the romance between Napoleon and Josephine.For people intrigued with the arguments concerning sustainability, Beckerman's book is a must-read. It offers short but very thoughtful examinations of several apparently problematic assumptions that lie at the heart of the sustainability philosophy. The sustainability notion emerged about two decades ago when environmentalists were forced to retreat from their "finite resources" argument (i.e., the world will run out of resource X) because, as highlighted by the famous Julian Simon-Paul Weyrich bet, the idea that the planet would simply "run out" became too untenable for all but the most radical environmentalists to hold. The more thoughtful environmentalists shifted to the Malthusian/Ricardoian notion that extraction rates will one day be unable to keep pace with consumption -- in part because resource extractors in the future will constrict supply to further drive up prices. Unlike the finite resources argument, the sustainability has good thought behind it. But does that theory hold up? Beckerman offers some pretty good arguments that it does not, and he also points out some very worrisome side-effects of the sustainability philosophy -- side-effects that could produce serious near-future ecological and human disasters.Balfour is correct that we must give serious thought to future generations when we set current resource policies. Unfortunately, he does not appear to realize that his philosophy puts those children at risk, nor does he seem to appreciate that the environmental catastrophes that he laments -- overpopulation, subsistence farming -- occur in the Third World whose ecological ethic he cherishes instead of the First World whose ethic he derides. Fortunately, Beckerman -- as well as his future challengers and their respondents -- will promote a better world for the generations to come.