Editing Ecological economics (section)

=== Differences from mainstream economics ===
Ecological economics differs from mainstream economics in that it heavily reflects on the ecological footprint of human interactions in the economy. This footprint is measured by the impact of human activities on natural resources and the waste generated in the process. Ecological economists aim to minimize the ecological footprint, taking into account the scarcity of global and regional resources and their accessibility to an economy.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://wwf.panda.org/knowledge_hub/teacher_resources/webfieldtrips/ecological_balance/eco_footprint/|title=Ecological Footprint - WWF|access-date=2020-11-12|website=wwf.panda.org}}</ref> Some ecological economists prioritise adding natural capital to the typical [[capital asset]] analysis of land, labor, and financial capital. These ecological economists use tools from [[mathematical economics]], as in mainstream economics, but may apply them more closely to the natural world. Whereas mainstream economists tend to be technological optimists, ecological economists are inclined to be technological sceptics. They reason that the natural world has a limited [[carrying capacity]] and that its resources may run out. Since destruction of important environmental resources could be practically irreversible and catastrophic, ecological economists are inclined to justify cautionary measures based on the [[precautionary principle]].<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Costanza | first1 = R | year = 1989 | title = What is ecological economics? | url = http://www.uvm.edu/giee/publications/Costanza_EE_1989.pdf | journal = Ecological Economics | volume = 1 | issue = 1 | pages = 1–7 | doi = 10.1016/0921-8009(89)90020-7 | bibcode = 1989EcoEc...1....1C }}</ref> As ecological economists try to minimize these potential disasters, calculating the fallout of environmental destruction becomes a humanitarian issue as well. Already, the Global South has seen trends of mass migration due to environmental changes. [[Climate refugees]] from the [[Global South]] are adversely affected by changes in the environment, and some scholars point to global wealth inequality within the current [[Neoliberalism|neoliberal]] economic system as a source of this issue.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Integrating Southern Perspectives {{!}} degrowth.info|url=https://www.degrowth.info/en/2017/10/integrating-southern-perspectives/|access-date=2020-11-12|language=en-US}}</ref>

The most cogent example of how the different theories treat similar assets is [[tropical rainforest]] ecosystems, most obviously the Yasuni region of [[Ecuador]].  While this area has substantial deposits of [[bitumen]] it is also one of the most diverse ecosystems on Earth and some estimates establish it has over 200 undiscovered medical substances in its genomes – most of which would be destroyed by logging the forest or mining the bitumen.  Effectively, the instructional capital of the genomes is undervalued by analyses that view the rainforest primarily as a source of wood, oil/tar and perhaps food. Increasingly the [[carbon credit]] for leaving the extremely [[emission intensity|carbon-intensive]] ("dirty") bitumen in the ground is also valued – the government of Ecuador set a price of US$350M for an oil lease with the intent of selling it to someone committed to never exercising it at all and instead preserving the rainforest.

While this natural capital and ecosystems services approach has proven popular amongst many it has also been contested as failing to address the underlying problems with mainstream economics, growth, market capitalism and monetary valuation of the environment.<ref>Martinez-Alier, J., 1994. Ecological economics and ecosocialism, in: O'Connor, M. (Ed.), Is Capitalism Sustainable? Guilford Press, New York, pp. 23-36</ref><ref>Spash, C.L., Clayton, A.M.H., 1997. The maintenance of natural capital: Motivations and methods, in: Light, A., Smith, J.M. (Eds.), Space, Place and Environmental Ethics. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., Lanham, pp. 143-173</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Toman | first1 = M | year = 1998 | title = Why not to calculate the value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital | journal = Ecological Economics | volume = 25 | pages = 57–60 | doi = 10.1016/s0921-8009(98)00017-2 }}</ref>  Critiques concern the need to create a more meaningful relationship with Nature and the non-human world than evident in the instrumentalism of shallow ecology and the environmental economists [[commodification]] of everything external to the market system.<ref>{{cite book | last1=O'Neill | first1=John | author-link=John O'Neill (philosopher)| title=Ecology, policy, and politics : human well-being and the natural world | publisher=Routledge | location=London New York | year=1993 | isbn=978-0-415-07300-4 | oclc=52479981 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = O'Neill | first1 = J.F. | year = 1997 | title = Managing without prices: On the monetary valuation of biodiversity | journal = Ambio | volume = 26 | pages = 546–550 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Vatn | first1 = A | year = 2000 | title = The environment as commodity | journal = Environmental Values | volume = 9 | issue = 4| pages = 493–509 | doi = 10.3197/096327100129342173 | doi-broken-date = 1 November 2024 }}</ref>