Editing Ecological economics (section)

=== Weak versus strong sustainability ===
{{Main|Weak and strong sustainability}}
{{See also | Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen #Criticising neoclassical economics (weak versus strong sustainability)}}
<imagemap>
File:Nested_sustainability-v2.gif|right|The three nested systems of [[sustainability]] - the economy wholly contained by society, wholly contained by the biophysical environment. Clickable.|275px|thumb
poly 123 35 134 30 171 41 196 65 194 98 167 119 121 123 79 101 73 64 101 40[[Economics|Economic]]
poly 67 52 41 70 41 111 71 150 123 167 169 163 207 147 234 113 239 83 218 49 190 32 204 77 194 111 167 125 115 126 83 110 62 78 64 60  [[Society|Social]]
poly 243 58 258 83 255 133 230 168 202 185 158 195 114 195 63 181 27 153 10 115 13 78 31 54 46 39 38 71 36 116 66 148 118 169 163 169 209 153 237 118 242 81 [[Environment (biophysical)|Environment]]
</imagemap>

Ecological economics challenges the conventional approach towards natural resources, claiming that it undervalues natural capital by considering it as interchangeable with human-made capital—labor and technology.

The impending depletion of natural resources and increase of climate-changing greenhouse gasses should motivate us to examine how political, economic and social policies can benefit from alternative energy. Shifting dependence on fossil fuels with specific interest within just one of the above-mentioned factors easily benefits at least one other. For instance, photo voltaic (or solar) panels have a 15% efficiency when absorbing the sun's energy, but its construction demand has increased 120% within both commercial and residential properties. Additionally, this construction has led to a roughly 30% increase in work demands (Chen).

The potential for the substitution of man-made capital for natural capital is an important debate in ecological economics and the economics of sustainability.
There is a continuum of views among economists between the strongly neoclassical positions of [[Robert Solow]] and [[Martin Weitzman]], at one extreme and the [[Pessimism#Entropy pessimism|'entropy pessimists']], notably [[Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen]] and [[Herman Daly]], at the other.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Ayres | first1 = R.U. | year = 2007 | title = On the practical limits of substitution | url = http://pure.iiasa.ac.at/7800/1/IR-05-036.pdf| journal = Ecological Economics | volume = 61 | pages = 115–128 | doi = 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.02.011 | s2cid = 154728333 }}</ref>

Neoclassical economists tend to maintain that man-made capital can, in principle, replace all types of natural capital.  This is known as the [[Strong vs Weak sustainability|weak sustainability]] view, essentially that every technology can be improved upon or replaced by innovation, and that there is a substitute for any and all scarce materials.

At the other extreme, the [[Strong vs Weak sustainability|strong sustainability]] view argues that the stock of natural resources and ecological functions are irreplaceable.  From the premises of strong sustainability, it follows that [[economic policy]] has a [[fiduciary]] responsibility to the greater ecological world, and that sustainable development must therefore take a different approach to valuing natural resources and ecological functions.

Recently, Stanislav Shmelev developed a new methodology for the assessment of progress at the macro scale based on multi-criteria methods, which allows consideration of different perspectives, including strong and weak sustainability or conservationists vs industrialists and aims to search for a 'middle way' by providing a strong neo-Keynesian economic push without putting excessive pressure on the natural resources, including water or producing emissions, both directly and indirectly.<ref>Shmelev, S.E. 2012. Ecological Economics. Sustainability in Practice, Springer</ref>