E C O L O G I C A L E C O N O M I C S 6 6 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 5 5 2 – 5 5 3

ava i l ab l e a t www.sc i enced i rec t . com

www.e l sev i e r. com/ l oca te /eco l econ

Book review

FEL

TobBEsdhqbe

tawcbI

infPahcemsouTptec

fslet

rontiers in Ecological Economic Theory and Application, J.D.rickson, J.M. Gowdy (Eds.), 2007, Edward Elgar Publishingtd., ISBN 978 1 84376 888, 365 pages

he production of books based on conference proceedingsften seems to take longer than expected. The chapters in thisook are drawn frompapers thatwere presented at the Secondiennial Meeting of the United States Society for Ecologicalconomics held in 2003. Inevitably some of the chapters mayeem a little dated, if only in terms of their references andata, and a little less fresh because in some cases their contentas found other outlets. Nonetheless, because of the highuality of many of the chapters and the selection of topics, theook is a valuable contribution to the literature on ecologicalconomics.The book is divided into four parts: ecological economic

heory, biodiversity and ecosystem health, climate change,nd energy. Each part is introduced by a helpful overviewritten specifically for the book by distinguished guestontributors that place the chapters in the context of theroader literature. I will comment on a few of the chapters thatfound of greatest interest.One of the reasons that environmental economics is more

fluential in public policy than ecological economics is itslagship decision-aiding tool, cost–benefit analysis (CBA).roponents of CBA point to previous successful studies suchs those that led to removing lead from gasoline, preventeduge dams on the Colorado River and regulation of polyvinylhloride. This reading of the history of CBA in health andnvironmental matters is successfully challenged by Acker-an, Heinzerling and Massey. They argue that some CBAtudies made little difference (e.g. lead removal) and thatthers would have reached different conclusions had they notsed faulty data (e.g. avoiding damming the Colorado river.)hey conclude that ‘a rigid insistence on making regulationsass cost–benefit tests would, in retrospect, have producedhe wrong answer time after time.’ (p. 30) The challenge forcological economists is to produce a decision-aiding tool thatan supplant CBA and we are a long way from that.Frank Muller's chapter on ecological economics as a basis

or distributive justice is refreshing. He observes that ‘foreveral decades, distributive issues were eliminated, or atast suppressed within mainstream economics…’ (p.80) evenhough there is ‘no “natural” sequence of events by means ofwhich growing economies generate greater income equal-

doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.12.032

ity.’(p.74) Such neglect of distribution is not tenable inecological economics with its emphasis on biophysical limitsto growth. Muller is especially critical of intergenerationalanalyses that use the present value of utility as the objectivefunction, especially when undertaken by economists thatdecry inter-personal comparisons of utility among con-temporaries. Muller's concise survey of approaches to dis-tributive justice as a way forward for ecological economics, isperhaps too spare in that surprisingly he omits Rawls' theoryof justice in his discussion.

Ecological economics has a history and no one knows thisbetter than Paul Christensen. Over the years he has madeseveral important contributions to ecological economicsdrawing upon earlier writers to help understand currentissues. In this book Christensen writes about the physical,technological and psychological foundations of economics.Just as economic theory was not ready to deal with theimplications of new power sources and technologies thatemerged in the early nineteenth century, mainstreameconomics is poorly equipped to cope with the biophysicallimits of the planet. Christensen concludes ‘we must…breakthe hold of the unholy alliance of economic theory, institu-tionalized policies, and corporate influence that currentlyhave a stranglehold on theoretical and policy initiatives.’(p.111)

In a critical evaluation of economic assessments of climatechange Clive Spash notes several limitations of applying cost–benefit analysis to climate change. Many of his criticisms stemfrom the fact that CBA was designed originally for evaluatingsmall, incremental projects. It is ill-suited for assessing gainsand losses from climate change which has far reachingimplications ranging over time, space and species. Spashobjects to the assumption that all categories of damage andgain are comparable and measurable in the same units.Comparing more walking and golfing in California with morepeople dying in Florida ‘would seem to rathermiss the point ofconcern’ (p.181). He challenges the ‘claim that economicvalues and scientific research are separable from the moraland ethical dimensions of the problems (economists) study’(pp.183/4) and he notes that the apparent agreement of severalstudies on the magnitude of economic impacts hides verywide variations in the estimates of individual categories ofimpact. Finally, Spash challenges the treatment of uncertaintyand the inadequate moral standing given to future genera-tions in CBA assessments of climate change.

553E C O L O G I C A L E C O N O M I C S 6 6 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 5 5 2 – 5 5 3

Cutler Cleveland's paper on energy quality, net energyand the coming energy transition is a sober reminder thatdelinking economic growth from increasing use of energy ismore difficult than it may appear. Studies which purport toshow that delinking is underway only look at the heatequivalent of various types of fuel. Cleveland points out thatfuels also vary in terms of their productivity or quality. Hereports that rather then delinking, there is a strong con-nection between energy use and GDP when energy quality isaccounted for. This consideration means that the transitionaway from oil and gas will require more than the substitutionof one source of BTUs for another. Wemust also pay attentionto the quality of the energy which may require ‘large amountsof capital, labor, energy andmaterials…to collect, concentrate

and deliver…energy to users,’ (p.280) making the task muchharder than many realize.

There are several other papers in the book that readers willfind stimulating and novel and a few that seem more akin toenvironmental rather than ecological economics. However, forthe most part, the book adds much that is helpful to theburgeoning literature on ecological economics.

Peter VictorFaculty of Environmental Studies, York University, 4700 Keele

Street, Toronto, Canada ON M3J 1P3E-mail address: pvictor@yorku.ca.

18 December 2007