Green Economics special features include a long-term perspective of archaeological or palaeontological time, and a perspective which includes women[3] as half the population is women, especially women's economic well-being as men own 99% of assets on the planet and poverty is a gendered issue, in the UK the pay gap is actually increasing for example. The Institute argues that it is not possible to express concern about poverty without taking this into account,[4] and this is also influenced by lack of women's representation in politics - the UK is ranked 47th in a new survey, where both aspects seem to dovetail. Similarly with this -young people in the UK came out bottom in a survey about their happiness [5] but the UK is ranked 5th globally in terms of GDP. This is another piece of evidence that GDP and mainstream economics are predicated on the "rational self interest of homo economicus" who tends to be white western educated middle class male which is a small percentage of people and life on earth and has been highly over represented in economics.
Economics was initially based on household or estate management, according to Xenophon and Aristotle: the root of the word 'economics' is oikia, a Greek word meaning house. Today our perception is that no one understands economics except homo economicus: the Nobel Prizes for economics have almost entirely gone to men, and the book about famous economists which most students of economics are given when they begin economics, Robert Heilbroner's Worldly Philosophers, does not include a single woman. Is it any wonder that women feel they have no access to economics and that their needs and those of the planet are no longer considered at all?
The idea that those without an economic voice do not count has been misused in many ways- for example using child labour, in wars, abuse of other peoples resources and land, those with special needs not being considered. Similarly the idea that technology will "fix it" has been over-emphasised as people need meaningful jobs, and extensive rather than intensive economies. Machines have been a means of creating higher GDP, at the expense of well-being. Technology 'fixing' it has been an excuse to carry on business as usual, such as creating greener cars, greener aeroplanes, but fundamentally the march of climate chaos continues for example.
In considering Green Economics there has to be an emphasis on lower consumption, lower demand - a change to growth meaning growth in nature, and abundance, rather than destruction for production. Chopping down the rainforest increases economic growth and GDP as currently measured by mainstream economics, but actually destroys stocks of natural capital, and creates scarcity not abundance, and is actually the opposite of growth. [6]. Green Economics is an attempt to therefore rectify the situation and to provide economic access for all and to take a much wider, more inclusive and more diverse, long-term view of economics.
There is no one solution that fits everyone. Economics is no longer about the battle between giant men's ideas. It is about provisioning for the needs of all of us, and those of the planet and the biosphere. This is creating a new kind of robust economics which is in the process of rapid transformation of the way we do things.
The Green Economics Institute www.greeneconomics.org.uk The Green Economics Institute is one of the most visited green websites which acts as a global noticeboard for anyone wanting to change our current situation of climate chaos, poverty and species depletion or to future proof their finances. The Green Economics Institute publishes its own academic journal www.inderscience.com/ijge The International Journal of Green Economics with academic publisher Inderscience and also a news magazine for members The Green Economist which it publishes itself.
Miriam Kennet written Jan 2008: Posted October 2008
