![]() ![]() If non renewable resources became scarce, they argued, prices would rise, triggering greater efficiency in their use, the wider use of substitutes, and exploration for new sources. Mainstream economists were quick to deride the model’s design on the basis that it underplayed the balancing feedback of the price mechanism in markets. ![]() In a discussion of less than than two pages, I think her position can be summarized by the following statements: To give you an example, Raworth mentions only once the 1972 study “The Limits to Growth” that was the first to pinpoint the resource problem. Natural resources, their depletion, and the related concept of “overshoot” are not just missing from the doughnut, they go mostly unmentioned and unnoticed in the whole book. It is natural resources and, in particular, non-renewable resources (*) Something is conspicuously missing and it is not a minor element of the overall picture. Look at the outer ring you will see 10 sectors, all related to pollution: climate change, ocean acidification, chemical pollution, etc. The problem with the doughnut is not so much understanding why it is shaped like a doughnut, but what it lacks. It is described as “a radically new compass for guiding humanity this century.” Ambitious, to say the least, but how is that supposed to work, exactly? Maybe I am missing something, but I not sure I can understand why the numerous concepts appearing in the figure should be arranged in a “doughnut.” ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |