Daniels, Climate Change, Economics and Buddhism, Part 2, New ...

Viewer
Transcript

Ecological Economics 69 (2010) 962–972

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Economics j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / e c o l e c o n

Climate change, economics and Buddhism — Part 2: New views and practices for sustainable world economies☆ Peter L. Daniels ⁎ Grifﬁth School of Environment, Grifﬁth University, Brisbane, 4111, Australia

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 28 October 2009 Received in revised form 27 January 2010 Accepted 31 January 2010 Available online 2 March 2010 Keywords: Climate change Economics Ethics Environmental analysis Buddhism Sustainability strategies

a b s t r a c t The evidence of impending and serious climate and other consequences of an expanding world economy based on fossil carbon energy continues to accumulate. This two-part paper examines the potential contribution of the world view and insights of Buddhism to this search. It presents both a conceptual and practical case that Buddhism can help shape and move towards an alternative and effective paradigmatic basis for sustainable economies — one capable of bringing about and maintaining genuine, high welfare levels across the world's societies. The ﬁrst paper outlined a comprehensive analytical framework to identify the fundamental nature of anthropogenic climate change. Based on the integration of two of the most inﬂuential environmental analysis tools of recent decades (the DPSIR model and IPAT equation), the framework was then broadened to facilitate ideas from the Buddhist world view by injecting two key missing aspects — the interrelated role of (1) beliefs and values (on goals and behavior) and (2) the nature of well-being or human happiness. Finally, the principal linkages between this climate change analysis framework and Buddhism were explored. In this concluding paper, the systems framework is used to demonstrate how Buddhist and related world views can feed into appropriate and effective responses to the impending challenges of climate change. This is undertaken by systematically presenting a speciﬁc, if indicative, list of relevant strategies informed by the understanding of interconnectedness and other basic principles about the nature of reality and human wellbeing as proposed in Buddhism. © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The level of human perturbation in the life-supporting planetary carbon cycle is now a cause of great concern (Perez and Batten, 2006). Beyond the threat of climate change catastrophe, global fossil carbon energy dependence brings an extensive range of political, environmental and social problems linked to the rather vulnerable sociocultural, technical and infrastructural systems that develop around such a “lucrative” (at least in the short-term) form of energy for society. Many of these troubling issues are intensifying with probable global oil peak and relentless growth in use and dependence on petroleum, natural gas and coal (Bardi, 2009). This two-part paper is premised on the proposition that current fossil carbon energy use is intrinsically high-intervention in nature and will, even via the biophysical mechanisms alone, have very signiﬁcant and disruptive outcomes on the interconnected well-being of individuals, society and nature. It is proposed that this level and form of intervention has become an inherent, powerful, and self☆ An updated paper based on a presentation to the United Nations Day of Vesak 2008 “Buddhist Response to Climate Change” Workshop, Hanoi, Vietnam May 15, 2008. ⁎ Tel.: +61 7 3735 7189; fax: +61 7 3735 7459. E-mail address: p.daniels@grifﬁth.edu.au. 0921-8009/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.01.012

reproducing driving force within global consumer society despite substantial human intentions for change towards more sustainable ways of life. Hence, rather piecemeal and incremental policy moves such as the property rights extension approach of emission trading schemes are deemed as well-meaning but unlikely to be adequate for the fundamental sociocultural, economic and technological changes required to effectively deal with climate change and other sustainability challenges. This limitation applies to both mitigation of sources of climate change, as well as adaptation to the unavoidable impacts from carbon cycle perturbation to date. Given a need for more profound change that is inevitably rooted in fresh world views, values and knowledge about the way to sustained improvements in well-being, this paper examines environmental, ethical and cosmological dimensions of Buddhism as a logical and practical basis for addressing climate change and other problems associated with humanity's growing dependence on fossil carbon. Arguably, the ideas are appropriate for evaluating all societal means and ends that have signiﬁcant linkages to nature. The ﬁrst paper involved a structured etiological analysis of relevant climate change drivers, pressures, and responses, and their connection to world views about the essential nature of universal interdependence and cause–effect relations. A key aspect was the role of beliefs, values, goals, and choices, and subsequent implications for

P.L. Daniels / Ecological Economics 69 (2010) 962–972

well-being. This Buddhism-inspired exploration of substantive causes opened the way for the range of effective solutions proposed in this concluding paper. The previous paper began with the development of a comprehensive analytical framework to identify the key relationships underlying the issue of anthropogenic climate change. Two inﬂuential environmental analysis tools were integrated — the DPSIR model and (extended) IPAT equation. This outcome was then expanded to accommodate two key missing aspects for injecting potential insight from Buddhism. These aspects are the interrelated roles of (1) beliefs and values (on goals and behavior) and (2) the nature of well-being or human happiness. The ﬁnal section of part 1 outlined the primary Buddhist views about the main linkages in our integrated heuristic framework for analyzing climate change. In this second paper, we build on this initial work and extract and construct the underlying policy themes and speciﬁc climate change responses that are consistent with the philosophy of Buddhism. The paper opens with a brief overview of the key features of the integrated framework for environmental problem analysis developed in the ﬁrst paper. Using this platform as a base, we identify and discuss the general guiding ideas and principles that would structure Buddhisminspired changes to address climate change and other inherent problems in economic systems predicated upon fossil carbon energy and its extensive intervention with and disruption to nature. The ﬁnal section presents some discussion on a speciﬁc list of nine compatible strategic changes broadly classiﬁed into chain impact and well-being research, policies for directly modifying economic behavior and choices, and mechanisms for shaping inner values and aspirations. 2. A review of the integrated environmental systems analysis framework including key elements of the Buddhist world view The extended scope of the integrated environmental analysis framework developed in the ﬁrst paper reﬂects Buddhism's emphasis upon ethical dimensions of human action and outcomes and the real inﬂuences upon well-being. However, our framework also serves as an appropriate platform for integrating Buddhism in terms of (a) explaining the fundamental nature of the driving forces behind climate change and, hence, (b) conﬁguring appropriate and effective responses to the problem. The latter, more practical and policyoriented issue comprises the essence and focus of this second paper. The heuristic framework builds upon the European Environmental Agency's popular “DPSIR” approach (Gabrielsen and Bosch, 2003). This systems analysis method starts with social and economic developments (driving forces (D)) that generate material and energy ﬂows that exert pressure on the environment (P) and, consequently, lead to changes in its state (S). In turn, state changes will impact human welfare (I) (e.g. via health, amenity and productivity effects) and will often elicit a response from society (R) aimed at modifying the driving forces and taking other mitigating, adaptive or remedial action. The greenhouse gas emissions from transport, agricultural and other petrochemical applications and activities leading to climate change are a classic case in point. Our ﬁrst innovation to this basic schema addresses the limited treatment of critical driving forces in the DPSIR model. The model is combined with an extended version of the popular and inﬂuential “Master” IPAT equation to inject a consistent and systematic detailed analysis of the essential driving forces (D) behind climate change.1 The driving forces in the right-hand side of the I = P.A.T equation are population (P), afﬂuence or output or consumption per person (GDP per capita in $s) (A); and the environmental impact per unit of output (per person) (T). However, afﬂuence (A) and technology or average 1 The Master IPAT equation is I = P.A.T where I is the total environmental impact (biophysical) and is equal to the product of population (P); afﬂuence or output or consumption per person (GDP per capita in $s) (A); and the environmental impact per unit of output (per person) (T) (Graedel and Allenby, 1995).

963

environmental impact of overall output (T) do not provide adequate information for understanding the complete nature of environmental pressure sources and hence the means by which these pressures might be reduced. We need to extend the PAT aspect of the equation to help reveal perhaps the most important and useful information for scientiﬁc understanding and strategic responses to speciﬁc environmental problems. Indeed, it is critical to know and measure (1) the nature and composition of consumption or production within the overall output bundle (afﬂuence), in conjunction with (2) the environmental impact associated with the production and consumption per unit (often per $) of each speciﬁc type of economic activity, or good or service. Naturally, the current technologies associated with production and consumption are instrumental for the latter aspect. This is the key to the detailed analysis of sources and derivation of potential solutions. Hence, the driving forces need to be studied not just in terms of population and overall levels of output but must also focus upon both the nature of output (or composition of consumption) and the environmental-intensity of each output type. The arithmetic product of (1) the level of speciﬁc activity, and (2) its environment-intensity, will determine the extent to which it puts pressure on the source and sink functions provided to humans from nature. The result is the extended, IPANT equation and the four sets of driving forces are shown integrated into the framework at the top of Fig. 1. The economic activity type(N)–technology (T) relation governs the driving force (D) → environmental pressure (P) linkage in the DPSIR model via emission, natural resource input and land use “factors” or “intensities”. The beneﬁts of this more complete decomposition and analysis of consumption (and, by corollary, production and trade) are now widely-recognized and match the strong growth in research interest in sustainable consumption, lifestyle and preference changes (Reisch and Røpke, 2004; Tukker, 2008). The additional innovations and extensions to the basic DPSIR framework are driven by its relative neglect of the deeper sociocultural factors that exist at the root environmental theme problems. It is no coincidence that the inclusion of these key variables also provides the appropriate interface for embedding the Buddhist world views into our integrated environmental systems analysis. The ﬁrst step is to incorporate the role of values, beliefs and ethical dimensions. It is their inﬂuence around the driving forces behind behavioral, social and economic outcomes (such as population, levels and nature of output and technology) that ultimately generate the environmental pressures behind climate change. However, this is not enough. We also need to identify how the integrated model connects to actual policy objectives. These objectives are typically focused, at least implicitly, upon net substantive and sustained gains in well-being. The idea that our belief system and world views conﬁgure our values, goals, choices and behavior that are manifest as the social and economic outcomes or driving forces has been incorporated into the integrated model as the inner right-hand box of Fig. 1. This valuebehavior relation is shown to connect to the DPSIR-IPANT model as (1) a key source of the driving forces and, (2) providing the essential understanding for effective change in behavior and responses to address climate change. The other main link to the Buddhist perspective is created by dropping the critical welfare or well-being component into the model (inner left-hand box of Fig. 1). Here, wellbeing is depicted as being inﬂuenced by (1) the traditional, if ambivalent, link to afﬂuence (GDP per capita), as well as (2) how much and what is produced and consumed (and indirectly, technology or how it is produced), (3) the environmental quality impacts of previous economic activity and, ﬁnally, (4) the nature of expectations, wants and goals. These main inﬂuences are shown by the four arrows leading to welfare in Fig. 1. Therefore, the overall analytic framework in Fig. 1, developed as the basis for introducing Buddhist insights into creating effective climate change strategies in the ﬁrst part of this paper, contains three

964

P.L. Daniels / Ecological Economics 69 (2010) 962–972

Fig. 1. The DPSIR-IPANT integrated framework for understanding the causes and potential solutions for climate change.

main interconnected elements: (1) the integrated DPSIR and extended IPAT framework, (2) a simple model of behavior as the result of goals and choices derived from prevailing beliefs and ethical systems, and (3) the interconnected central objective or end-point of human welfare or well-being. The previous paper of this article outlines the primary Buddhist views on the cause–effect relations that pivot upon the two “sociocultural” additions to the DPSIR framework. They cover how beliefs, values, goals, choices and behavior guide the driving forces behind the climate change threat, as well as how well-being is actually inﬂuenced by economic and environmental outcomes, and expectations and goals. As discussed in the earlier paper, the most relevant and direct aspects of Buddhism are probably the ﬁrst two of the Four Noble Truths together with the strong theme of existential interconnectedness.2 They present the main cause–effect relations that explain the major sources of welfare loss — including climate change impacts as a form of societal “suffering” from ignorance and misdirected action. The Buddhist insights regarding the values-behavior outcome and the path to well-being can be brieﬂy summarized as follows. The conventional Western consumer economy view of well-being, and hence our primary life activity goals, is incorrect. Beyond basic biophysical and social-community needs, material accumulation and attachment is actually a source of suffering (or, perhaps, “disutility” in neoclassical economic speak). This is very different from the positive relationship between economic output and welfare adopted as an axiom in mainstream economic thought. The ﬁrst two Noble Truths 2 In brief, the Four Noble Truths are (1) that existence is pervaded by impermanence and associated “suffering” or profound dissatisfaction, (2) that the cause of this suffering is attachment to desire, (3) there is a way to end suffering and achieve peace — cease attachment to desire, and (4) that the way to end suffering is to follow the Eightfold Path. Buddhism's unique view of Anatta or “soulnessness” where there is no ﬁxed self-identity through life and death reinforces its emphasis on interconnectedness and compassion (Narada, 1966). Individual “welfare” is intrinsically tied to that of other sentient beings. Rather than self-seeking goals of future well-being from one's appropriate acts in present life, true welfare (Nirvana) will occur by release from divided, individual existence.

describe how worldly phenomena are intrinsically transient and eventually change into a different form or state, or are subject to saturation or adaptation, so they no longer comprise the source of beneﬁt originally expected from them. Thus, attachment to desire and the hope that well-being will continue to be drawn from outside sources is the primary source of discontent. When these “truths” are coupled with central notion of the profound and substantive interconnectedness of all things, the essential Buddhist explanation of the sources of climate change drivers is further revealed. If attachment and the pursuit of desire are associated with high levels of biophysical intervention and disruption, consequent suffering (or dukkha) is intensiﬁed. Source impacts will extend out from individuals, across society and nature (the “three realms”), and back, to have commensurate longer-term welfare effects upon the originator. Hence well-being requires basic material needs but, beyond this level, it has very contingent links to afﬂuence or overall levels of output and consumption (measured in monetary or biophysical terms). Other important inﬂuences on well-being derived from Buddhism are represented by dashed lines in the integrated model (Fig. 1). They include the nature of consumption (including time use) and the intensity of speciﬁc disruptive impacts that ﬂow through society, nature and back to the individual source. One further inﬂuence on well-being would be the disappointment from the failure of the goal of greater consumption and its desired satisfaction effect. From this explanation of the problem sources, it is possible to identify the nature of appropriate changes and strategies to induce such changes. 3. General Buddhist principles for effective responses to climate change The discussion of Buddhism in the ﬁrst paper of this series was restricted to its view about the current underlying “causal” processes at work. In particular, we looked at how the Buddhist world view explains the driving forces behind climate change as an outcome of

P.L. Daniels / Ecological Economics 69 (2010) 962–972

965

Fig. 3. Effective responses also require understanding of the full environmental impacts of driving forces back on society (I).

Fig. 2. The inﬂuence of Buddhist world views on responses to climate change.

underlying beliefs, values, wants and goals. The other key focus for this task was upon the perception of well-being and how it is actually affected by economic output levels and type, technology, and environmental conditions and impacts. Understanding causes and the means and ends for true well-being gains is, of course, an essential aspect for identifying solutions. In this paper, the emphasis shifts to an exposition of how a Buddhist world view and principles would inform effective climate change responses that are consistent with its notion of positive social and economic outcomes. Theoretically, a society that embraced Buddhism as a guiding basis for the nature of its social and economic conditions would greatly reduce the drivers that currently underlie predicted climate change. Fig. 2 shows that portion of the overall DPSIR-IPANT hybrid model focused upon human responses to climate change (R). In the basic DPSIR framework, responses are considered as a reaction to socioeconomic impacts (in this case, from climate change). They can be targeted either at underlying driving forces or comprise more reactive, remedial and ex post efforts to mitigate existing environmental pressures (P) and state (S) changes, or alleviate related adverse societal impacts (I). Note that the latter approach is passive and remedial and is not shown in Fig. 2.3 Indeed, it is considered of secondary importance in this analysis given the explicit emphasis upon fundamental cause–effect relations in Buddhism (Bhikkhu Bodhi, 1987; Yamamoto, 1998, 2003). Given this orientation, and the fact that driving forces and responses are forms of human behavior, the primary task is to explain the goals and logic behind human choices and activity. In the integrated model of the ﬁrst paper, we have used the sociocultural extensions to show how Buddhism provides a clear analysis of the misdirected sources of driving forces behind behavior. With this knowledge of the underlying nature of beliefs, goals, wants and choices, appropriate strategies can be designed and implemented. The two arrows leading to “Responses” in Fig. 2 are intended to emphasize that insights from Buddhism help explain (1) the fundamental (belief–goal–behavior) sources of climate change driving forces and, hence, (2) identify what responses could change underlying belief, goals and behavior. To effectively and efﬁciently make changes that reduce the sources of climate change, it is ﬁrst necessary to have a comprehensive understanding of the relative contribution of different driving forces (D) to the biophysical conditions (P and S) and impacts (I) we associate with climate change. Climate change pressures, states and impacts can be analyzed back to their underlying human activities via natural and social science assessment of the links between D P S I (see Fig. 3). This involves the extensive investigation of the full chain effects (life cycle and

3

However, it is identiﬁed in the original DPSIR diagram in Fig. 1 of the ﬁrst paper.

system-wide) of speciﬁc types of consumption, production, technologies and other worldly choices.4 From the initial discussion of how Buddhism helps in the environmental systems analysis of climate change, there are two immediate inferences that can be used to guide responses. Firstly, the Buddhist world view reveals that prevailing driving forces based on maximizing consumption or want-satisfaction will ultimately fail to relieve suffering from clinging to desire (tanha) (Mendis, 1993). In fact, the mindset and intent underlying such an (unachievable) goal is likely to increase dissatisfaction and disappointment (and hence, lower perceived quality of life) (Zadek, 1993). A second inference from the Buddhist viewpoint is that these negative outcomes are likely to be accentuated if the driving force activity has high levels of disturbance on the external world (as occurs with fossil carbon). Extending upon the principles of the 1st and 2nd Noble Truths, the 3rd and 4th Noble Truths set the basis for making the appropriate “Buddhist” response to climate change. According to the ﬁnal two Noble Truths, the way to alleviate the relentless dissatisfaction of life is to cease attachment and clinging to the desire for material or social status success and other external world sources of happiness.5 Instead, for true well-being gains, it is necessary to mindfully consider, with the supporting knowledge, the nature of cause–effect relations associated with our desires (and their related outcomes) in their full holistic, ecological, and interconnected sense. As noted in the 4th Noble Truth, the mental and physical conditions needed for this way out from dissatisfaction are welldescribed by the Eightfold Path which details the required dimensions of understanding, mental processes, patterns and thoughts, and actions and behavior (Sangharakshita, 2007). The eight aspects cover economic and spiritual requirements for well-being and have a natural ﬂow from wisdom (right understanding and right aspiration) to moral commitment (right speech, action and livelihood) to mental regulation (right effort, mindfulness, and concentration). They are presented as mutually reinforcing rather than a linear sequence of thought and activity traits. The foundational wisdom (or panna) elements derive from Buddhist cosmology or explanations about the 4 It is true that the driving forces behind increased environmental pressures can also have positive effects. The contemporary “ecological modernization” debate reﬂects the potential for reducing environmental demands via eco-efﬁciency technological change, and more recently, adaptive shifts in consumption patterns (Carolan, 2004). This raises several issues for the Buddhist perspective. For example, is striving for, even dematerialized, growth inconsistent with Buddhism? It would seem to align with very low intervention “growth” activities that truly enhance interconnected and sustained welfare though there would be perceived limits to well-being from material, external world sources (even with low intervention). Increased population (typically linked to greater environmental pressure) also has immense positive potential in terms of the generation of knowledge and new ideas (and positive spillovers and the low marginal costs of dissemination). 5 In particular, two types of desire – kama and bhava tanha – which focus upon sensory pleasure and efforts at ego or status gain can be seen as responsible for most existing environmental pressure (Daniels, 2007).

966

P.L. Daniels / Ecological Economics 69 (2010) 962–972

nature of universe and also from experience and observed outcomes. The resulting self-realization and “spiritual intelligence” provides the transformative understanding and will for release from suffering (Zohar, 2002; Zsolnai, 2007). The behavioral aspects that make up the morality set (or sila) within the Eightfold Path relate more to external activity while samadhi or concentration (together with right effort and mindfulness) are the internal, mind disciplines. While the Eightfold Path has many potential aspects that can help in the design and selection of appropriate responses to the threat of climate change, more detailed insights are left to the discussion of speciﬁc strategies, where relevant, in the next section. However, one major theme imbued in the Eightfold Path, of particular relevance to sustainability issues, is the principle of moderation or the “Middle Way”. In brief, the Middle Way describes the best approach for real and sustained increases in well-being in life, for the laity, as the “golden mean” — a concept shared in various philosophical strands (Marinoff, 2007; Phrabhavanaviriyakhun, 2008). As learned from the Buddha's direct experiences in seeking the appropriate mental and behavioral modus operandi towards Nirvana or release from suffering, the effective path lies between the extremes of hedonistic self-indulgence and sensual pleasure, and excessive self-mortiﬁcation or asceticism (Gunasekara, 1982). The Middle Way is a balanced approach in which basic needs and wants that genuinely enhance welfare can, and should, be satisﬁed for all people. This would naturally cover food, clothing, warmth, shelter, and most ecological services as well as psychological security from social and community-based needs. Buddhism is not opposed to efﬁcient economic production and material security but output is considered most valuable in providing the conditions (time, health and energy) for the more effective “spiritual” paths to well-being (Mendis, 1993; Tideman, 2001). Extremes are be avoided and excessive attachment and accumulation is inimical to the three spheres (the individual, society and nature), and individual well-being and spiritual progress. The key process is to break and close the endless wants-satisfaction circular gap by the realization of the heedless nature of clinging to tanha (desire) as a source of well-being. Happiness or satisfaction derive more from restraint upon desire (Bhikkhu Bodhi, 1987). Moderation in consumption is upheld as a preferred basis for improving welfare rather than the obsessive, consumption-ﬁxated lifestyle that has dominated for global market economies. As with appetite and diet, excess is thought to bring suffering. In regard to human interaction with the natural environment, moderation is manifest as a balance between meeting certain key well-being needs and wants whilst minimizing (disruptive) intervention upon society and nature. The notion echoes that of “sufﬁciency” where self-restraint regarding material needs is a requirement for sustainable development and long-term true increases in welfare (Sachs et al., 1998; Huber, 2000). Moderation also reﬂects the sentiment, expressed by the renowned psychologist and economist Herbert Simon (1959), economist Menchikov and many others, that people actually seek balanced satisfaction rather than maximization in their dealings with the material or external world (Tideman, 2000). Karmic interdependence supplies adequate cause for adopting guiding principles of compassion, loving-kindness, non-violent motives and mindfulness of the consequences of initiated actions and events across all three realms. Of course, although contemporary afﬂuent societies do show signs of change, these insights – that excessive consumption is undesirable, and minimum intervention in the external world is good – are not generally consistent with their structural underpinnings and selfreproduction. The changes required for addressing the roots of the climate change problem will need to occur at both individual and social collective levels. Naturally, individual and social choices and action are inextricably connected. Indeed, the volitional individual changes that are required to address the roots of climate change are deeply constrained by wider socioeconomic structures that have “locked-in”

many forms of environmentally-signiﬁcant behavior such as the daily commute, household heating, diet, and social status deﬁned on the basis on material and social success. Hence, there is a concomitant need for community-wide structural change–change that would only come about with the support of values, belief and ethical systems based on the insights and knowledge akin to those outlined in this paper. Appropriate collective responses are certainly critical for overcoming structural changes to climate change and the web of sustainability issues faced by humanity, but this does not negate the central role of the reorientation in the mental outlook and behavior of individual people as consumers and producers. To describe the range of appropriate individual and societal responses, it is very useful to frame the discussion in terms of the extended IPAT, or IPANT, equation outlined in some detail in the ﬁrst paper. This approach demonstrates how Buddhist insights can feed into the four major sets of underlying driving forces behind the growth in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases — that is, population (P), output per person (A), and the nature or composition (N) and associated technology and “environmental-intensity” (T) of that output. To begin with the most problematic issue, there are many possible interpretations of what Buddhist philosophy means for human population growth (P) (see Ling, 1969; Searle, 1995). Arguably, the abjuration of short-term desire and sensual pleasure, realization of the negative impacts of overpopulation on others, and the ultimate goal of release from the endless cycle of birth, dissatisfaction and death, suggests that procreation would be discouraged and the human population on Earth would fall and perhaps eventually disappear. However, this is a complex and contentious matter and it is not addressed in any more detail here. Next, there is the elusive concept of “afﬂuence” which is measured as output or consumption per capita (A) in the IPAT equation. Technically, afﬂuence – measured as average levels of economic income available per person – is a socially-constructed monetary value (presented in dollars per person). It has no necessary biophysical connection (say, to greenhouse gas emissions in our problem case) except via the nature, and related technology, of the pattern of consumption (N and T). However, if N and T remain constant, then growth in afﬂuence will, of course, lead to greater environmental disruption. From the Buddhist perspective, the desire for “maximizing” utility via ever-increasing exchange value activity (as measured in most national income accounts) is a life activity obsession resulting from ignorance about the Four Noble Truths, interdependence, and the Eightfold Path. It is not just the consequences of this action, but the misguided nature of the intent behind it that detracts from the welfare of those seeking maximum utility from external sources (especially if their actions involve disruptive impacts on the world). This view suggests that “afﬂuence”, measured by conventional growth deﬁnitions, would be substantively moderated in the general shift toward lower intervention and expectations regarding externalbased satisfaction. However, it is pragmatic to recognize that vital levels of economic activity are probably necessary, at least over the next few decades, to avoid serious adversity and resistance given the existing structure and workings of much of the world's developed and developing economies (Brundtland, 1987; Pryor, 1991). Incremental reductions at some point in the future may be more consistent with a Buddhist-inspired vision. However, given the obstacles and dangers of constraining economic output in general, it is argued that the primary factors for viable and effective transformation towards sustainability are the nature, and associated technology, of the consumption bundle (that is, N and T). This involves targeting a very substantial reduction in the social and economic disturbance associated with economic value produced per person and not simply a focus upon reducing economic output in a general sense. To minimize the social and environmental disturbance of economic activity, the key tasks are to understand and build awareness about the

P.L. Daniels / Ecological Economics 69 (2010) 962–972

ramiﬁcations of our intent and choices in lifestyle and livelihood. This includes their direct impact upon our anticipated satisfaction and more indirectly, via the interconnected ﬂows across the three realms. Hence, choices about what is wanted from life and the environment (that is, the demand and consumption that pulls production) should accurately reﬂect their inﬂuence on our long-term well-being or actual welfare outcomes. In economic parlance, this involves the aligning of actual and true preferences and makes profound sense even within the discipline's own conﬁnes. 4. Some speciﬁc climate change responses inspired by Buddhism Selected Buddhism-inspired responses to climate change are presented in this section with some explanatory discussion. This overview is intended to be indicative rather than complete. Many important ideas are only introduced and the division between items is often arbitrary and does not give full justice to their interdependence. For example, individual awareness, knowledge and attendant insight are the basis for the Buddhist perspective and truly “rational” choices, and appropriate changes in education would permeate throughout most of the individual dimensions outlined. In sum, the responses are only intended to form a partial but representative integration of Buddhist views and Western culture. For organizational clarity, the ten strategic responses outlines have been grouped into three types — (a) research into the interdependence between economic activity, ongoing economic and environmental effects, and well-being (and the improved measurement of progress re the latter concept) (b) more direct policy tools to modify external inﬂuences on people's information, choices and behavior and (c) societal measures to instigate compatible change in people's “internal” goals and world views. These dimensions are all interrelated. 4.1. Research into economic, environmental and well-being interdependence The previous section concluded that the sustained, improved wellbeing of humans will depend largely upon adaptive modiﬁcation to the nature of consumption and its technology-environment consequences (N and T). The ﬁrst major step in being able to shape N and T ties in well with Buddhism's emphasis on the role of experiential or empirical understanding and validation. It focuses upon the need for research and knowledge into two main areas — 1. the full chain effects of economic activity (“driving forces”) and 2. the links between consumption and well-being. To support the strategic implementation of the fruits of this research and knowledge, a third activity of beneﬁt would be to develop and adopt better indicators that can accurately assess the favorability of economic (and associated environmental and social) outcomes and their consistency with broader social goals such as reducing suffering, discontent, and dissatisfaction. Response 1. Research into the “karmic” impacts of speciﬁc economic activity and technologies. Promote research and knowledge to assess climate change and other environmental impacts (I) of different types, sectors, ﬁelds, or clusters of production and consumption (N), and their associated technologies (T). Science and technology have been instrumental as sources of current environmental problems and the questionable pursuit of welfare through material “superabundance” (Yamamoto, 2003). However, they are sure to be a key aspect of any solution including a Buddhist-inspired transformation to sustainable and “happier” economies. Appropriate scientiﬁc effort would cover the support, development, and application of existing and new chain management techniques that measure not only direct but also “chain” or full life cycle and “external” ﬂow-on effects and embodied resource use associated with different types of socioeconomic activity. This analysis

967

should cover the whole spectrum of production and consumption activities and technologies. While this goal intimates a critical biophysical dimension, social and economic impacts would be integral in the assessment process (see the next response). Cost-effectiveness is a key criterion in this formidable task and there would need to be an initial focus on major disruption sources and chain impact ﬂows (and fossil carbonintensive activity would undoubtedly make this group). Efforts in the area would become more effective with accumulating expertise, skills and knowledge. There is already a strong base with rapid growth in the development and application of chain management techniques in ecological economics, and environmental assessment science in general, over the past two decades (for example, a small sample of such approaches would include sustainable consumption, life cycle assessment and environmental and physical input–output tables, material and energy ﬂow analysis, and the United Nations' System of Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounts (see Daniels, 2002; Foran et al., 2005; Lorek and Spangenberg, 2001)). Response 2. Research into the conditions and outcomes that actually make people and society “happier”. Promote research and knowledge about the relationship between the (i) level and nature of consumption and (ii) welfare or well-being. The previous response urges the assessment of the biophysical changes and metabolic ﬂows induced by speciﬁc economic activities and their interdependent and longer-term effects. In our second response, the emphasis is upon knowledge of these impacts upon people's welfare or well-being. Rational decisions are only possible when people have accurate and reliable information about the goals, outcomes and means that actually enhance their welfare. This is a matter of identifying and revealing people's true preferences — the “ultimate, unique truth about what is really right and best for a person” and extension of this knowledge to society overall (Tomer, 2003, p.5). Buddhism already has much to say on this topic but appropriate scientiﬁc evidence on actual well-being outcomes would be most helpful for efﬁcacious economic activity. Most religions and many political philosophical vantages agree that actual preferences (the sets of incompletely-informed desires or preferences embraced so readily by neoclassical economics) need to be rationally relinquished in favor of true preferences. A key aspect of this overall strategy would involve reducing the inﬂuence of advertising and structural economic forces that create or promote wants that rate poorly by increasing society's metabolism and/or adding little to or reducing well-being. Together, this information could facilitate some form of use of “happiness/health” ratings and labeling on speciﬁc consumer options. The allure of consumer debt as part of the want creation underlying the consumption-happiness fallacy would also be discouraged through institutional means and information about the poor well-being consequences of current, and especially debt-based, consumption (with its additional burdens of future work commitment). There is also a ﬂurry of research and enquiry activity underway looking at well-being or “happiness” levels and key inﬂuences. This aligns well with the needs for Buddhism-informed strategic responses to climate change (Moro et al., 2008). In scientiﬁc circles, examples of this growth in interest include the proliferation in relevant journals and journal articles (for example, the Journal of Happiness Studies), innovative studies of welfare sources and impacts in environmental, welfare and experimental economics (Gintis, 2000; Welsch, 2009), and extensive analyses of subjective well-being and related methodological development and data compilation as per the inﬂuential “World Database of Happiness” maintained by Erasmus University in Rotterdam. Together, the biophysical chain effects and source of happiness research foci would provide an ideal basis for assessing which areas or types of economic activity, and associated technologies are least

968

P.L. Daniels / Ecological Economics 69 (2010) 962–972

disruptive or “non-harmful” and provide the most cost-effective means of enhancing human welfare. The ﬁrst requirement is to understand the direct welfare outcomes of speciﬁc activities and their technologies as well as their “spillover” well-being impacts via material and energy, waste and other social and environmental ﬂows through the three realms. Given this knowledge, it is possible to identify which activities and technologies have the best welfare outcomes for the least intervention disturbance. Hence, decisions about adaptive responses would be cognizant of both the welfare and climate change contribution of production and consumption. This would guide individuals, and collective policy options and strategies as well as major development and investment in technological, infrastructure and lifestyle futures. Knowledge about the nature of consumption (N) and the associated environmentalintensity of the makeup of consumption (T) allow the design of effective strategies to either: (1) shift behavior and choices to reduce the absolute and relative size of “harmful” consumption types or clusters possessing high environmental-intensity (that is, low direct well-being to social and environmental cost ratio), and/or (2) promote eco-efﬁcient technology change to reduce environmental and societal disruption or harm in those production and consumption sectors with essential or beneﬁcial activities but signiﬁcant environmental impact (and in those ﬁelds where technology change is likely to be very cost-effective). For climate change, example strategies would probably aim to (a) reduce private car transport kilometers and implement low fossil carbon integrated alternatives (covering transport, energy and urban form options that reduce unnecessary spatial separation for key life activity work, social and leisure functions); (b) change energyintensive leisure (e.g. international jet travel) towards activity which has lower energy needs (e.g. local destinations) or less disruptive energy sources (say, wind energy); and (c) change in diet or nutrition choices away from livestock-based production with its high environmental demands and animal “suffering”, towards vegetarian produce that is not dependent upon fossil fuels.6 Response 3. Develop and implement new progress indicators to direct policy and strategic policy option choices. The breakdown of simplistic relations between undifferentiated output, consumption or afﬂuence, and well-being, hastens the need for more realistic measures of societal “progress”. It suggests a move away from gross domestic product per capita and related indicators towards conditions such as “subjective well-being” (Diener et al., 1999) and more direct life satisfaction measures that would evolve from scientiﬁc research into the linkages between lifestyle and consumption choices and ambitions, and welfare (as proposed in the second response concerning new research and knowledge foci). Hence, individual and societal evaluation of what constitutes “improvements” would integrate and internalize the full social, economic and environmental consequences of options. Narrow economic indicators based on incomplete costs and beneﬁts would gradually be replaced by more valid “karmic” progress indicators that account for interdependence effects in measuring welfare change. This is widely-recognized as a complex task with many aspects requiring further research and development for the broad-based adoption of satisfactory measures. However, progress has unfolded with the earlier social development and sustainability indicators such as the Human Development index (HDI) and Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW) and now, more sophisticated and potentially robust, measures such as “subjective well-being” and Bhutan's 6 In addition to its major land degradation, biodiversity loss, water use and human health impacts, global livestock-based industry generates more greenhouse gas emissions (in CO2 equivalents) than transport (Steinfeld et al., 2006).

“gross national happiness” (Daly and Cobb, 1989; Alkire et al., 2008). Recent developments in the latter include its coverage of nine dimensions — many with close links to the responses outlined here. They include psychological well-being, time use, community vitality, health, education, environmental diversity, living standard and governance. The list of potential climate change responses that are consistent with the insights and ethical basis of Buddhism is extensive. Positive change in the behavior of individuals would occur, over and beyond market and other policy directives, as a direct result of widespread recognition of interdependence and greater knowledge and awareness of the full consequences of one's motives and actions. More sustainable lifestyle and consumption and technology choices would ensue. The perennial notion of consumer sovereignty in economics can become a powerful ally of sustainability — changes in demand, combined with better information, intent and freedom to do so, promote appropriate changes in production. However, there are many forms of collective action and policy to encourage and facilitate behavioral change by individuals as producers and consumers in order to “ecologize” N and T (patterns of consumption and environment-related technologies) under Buddhist perspectives such as minimum disturbance and true well-being through mindful and moderated consumption. A selection of direct policy climate change responses, based on Buddhism's world view, is presented below. 5. Direct policy tools to foster change Response 4. Adjust market prices to incorporate the full interdependence costs and beneﬁts of production and consumption. As with the standard environmental economic approach, a major policy tool based on the Buddhist ideas surveyed here would involve the use of taxes and subsidies that internalize the full “karmic” consequences of speciﬁc goods, services and activities. Such corrective accounting policy would be based upon much more accurate knowledge of economic and well-being social costs and beneﬁts of speciﬁc consumption types (and their associated technologies). It would be authenticated by the value changes discussed more in the next section. Two major classes of goods and services would be discouraged via market-based instruments (such as taxes). These are (1) output with substantial negative spillovers on society, nature (and hence back on the initiating individuals), and (2) goods and services that have signiﬁcant environmental demands but actually end up contributing little to increases in individual or community well-being. The extreme environmental and social disruption and externalities of fossil carbon use are obviously a case in point for the former class. The second group includes many “adaptive” and “positional” goods (Hirsch, 1976; Frank, 1997, 2003; Mainwaring, 2001; Layard, 2005; Baucells and Sarin, 2007). Unlike “basic goods” such as food, sleep and social relationships, adaptive goods are subject to rapidly diminishing loss in “utility” after possession or provision, and are evidenced by items such as house size and views, rich food, competitive professional status, freeways, and increasing audio-visual quality, performance and size. Positional goods only provide short-lived welfare gains to their consumers whilst others do not possess them. As societal consumption increases and social comparison-based welfare dissipates, they ultimately involve zero sum welfare games. Typical positional goods often have signiﬁcant elements of conspicuous consumption and include exclusive real estate or fashion items, exotic tourism and travel, and luxury or fast cars. The two types of goods are related via their dependence on welfare gains via a dynamic reference level. People often commit or sacriﬁce large amounts of their time, energy and other life options into the pursuit of these forms of consumption — in the misguided belief that the net result of their pursuit and consumption they will bring lasting satisfaction (Baucells and Sarin, 2007).

P.L. Daniels / Ecological Economics 69 (2010) 962–972

Alternatively, lower production costs and prices and other market adjustments can be used to nurture and encourage socially productive enterprise and organizations that produce “compassion” or positive “interdependence” goods and services (or “PIGS”!). These activities are replete with spillover beneﬁts through the individual, societal and natural realms. Examples might include health promotion; education; peace initiatives; appropriate, sustainable technology transfer and development assistance for low income nations; nature conservation and restoration; renewable energy supplies and products; low impact and healthy food production; physical and mental health and stress relief programs such as meditation, yoga and other forms of low energy welfare enhancement; friendship, social capital programs, and community building; charitable activity; spiritual activities; transport and housing forms that reduce non-renewable energy needs; balanced family and leisure time; and material and energy saving appliances and practices. Technology change, such as a shift to renewable energy, does not guarantee sustainability as many alternatives have signiﬁcant negative consequences such as land and ecosystem loss. Desire and demands that, by their very essence, require substantial intervention and disruption in the natural world, must be mitigated as part of an effective response. The provision of basic goods such as food and shelter to impoverished in low and higher income nations would also become a societal priority given the substantial and real well-being gains that are ampliﬁed by interdependence, and undiminished by adaptation and social comparison tendencies. Other more “command-and-control” approaches such as legal and regulatory instruments and standards could play a complementary role in forcing a shift in the nature of consumption and associated technologies towards less disruptive patterns, and modifying societal deﬁnitions of status. However, their coercive nature does not ﬁt well with the tolerance and individual spiritual path freedom emphases of the Buddhist way. Response 5. Extensive support and funding of technology for minimizing sources of climate change (and other environmental) pressures. Very substantial investment in material, energy and waste-saving, and renewable energy technologies, would be a foundation for successfully inducing appropriate changes in T (the environmentintensity of economic output). The ability to globally diffuse a green “techno-economic paradigm” based on the material and energysaving potential of pervasive information and communication technologies would provide virtuous circles of innovation and resource productivity gains, thus supporting sustainability and reduction of climate change pressures (Daniels, 2003; Phillimore, 2001). This must take into account offsetting growth in consumption and resource ﬂows from the “rebound effect” of greater productivity and income. Technologies must also be assessed in terms of their inter-related social and environmental impacts. In contrast to the current proﬂigate consumption of fossil carbon energy, their use should be directed towards removing their centrality in existing and emerging higher income economies. This investment in technology would be reafﬁrmed by widespread appreciation of the inﬂuence of the nature and levels of consumption upon well-being (as outlined in Section 3 and investigated scientiﬁcally in proposed responses 1 and 2). Response 6. International policy and assistance for welfare growth and minimum environmental disturbance in the developing world. The implications of Buddhist ethics for climate change and sustainability in lower income and developing nations is a huge topic and worthy of an entire paper in its own right. Brieﬂy, some useful strategies consistent with the Buddhist world view would include the non-exploitative transfer of knowledge, technology and capital ﬂows focused on encouraging output and consumption with positive and undisruptive social and environmental effects. There is great potential for leapfrogging the historical problems and techno-

969

logical and well-being assumption errors of the higher income nations and in facilitating material and energy-saving technology and capital forms. Consumption choices in higher income nations and careful consideration of the chain effects and consequences of trade and capital ﬂows would constitute primary concerns. 6. Encouraging change from within Response 7. Moral suasion, education, social policy, media support. Internal value changes to ameliorate climate change pressures would be related to people's awareness of the interconnected impacts of their choices and actions. Based on the research about the true wellbeing outcomes of consumption, many forms of formal and informal community education and information dissemination via mass and speciﬁc media could help fundamentally change many of the key drivers underlying climate change. A major goal would be to help redeﬁne collective deﬁnitions of status and promote meritocratic systems where “merit” is assessed in terms of positive, interdependence economic “output”, non-violence and compassion, and judicious action hinged upon minimum disturbance and loving-kindness. Response 8. Changes in individual's roles as producers. The impetus for positive climate change actions by people as “business” would derive from both external social inﬂuences, and the discursive and practical consciousness of producers as actors or “free” agents of change. Externally, producers would respond to the interdependence-conscious consumer, household investor, general community and their representative governance. These forces help push social responsibility, triple bottom line reporting, environmental management systems (EMS), “voluntary” agreements and other volitional institutional and behavioral changes that work to reduce producers' environmental and resource impact demands. Fossil fuel and other sources of greenhouse gas emissions lie at the heart of current pressures threatening sustainability. External market forces also drive positive change because of the cost-competitiveness ecoefﬁciency gains associated with less environmental resource demands and impacts. A related impetus comes from the recognition of transaction cost advantages of Buddhist ethics with its implicit yet powerful underlying quality of compassion and a no-harm world view and motives. Trust, strength of social capital, and other aspects of transaction costs and informal institutions are well-known as very signiﬁcant inﬂuences upon the functionality of economic systems (North, 1990). This also applies to corporate culture and co-operative, harmonious and productive performance within the ﬁrm's social environment (Tideman, 2001). Finally, producers are subject to growing pressure to restructure in favor of reducing greenhouse gas emissions amidst other forms of sustainability from the increasing use of government “carrots” and “sticks” such as market-based instruments, regulation, eco-information and other strategic policy targeted at sustainability. However, with an economy imbued by the world view and Eightfold Path of Buddhism, a key internal impetus for change from business leader and workers would simply come from their afﬁliated ethical principles intertwined with the realization and knowledge that their personal long-term welfare is also tied to the economic, social and environmental consequences of their choices and activities as producers. Producers do have many options in providing the services demanded by consumers, and non-violence and minimum disruption of nature can be intrinsic criteria of one's “labor” activity (DesJardins, 2007). Environmental responsibility falls naturally in the lap of the producer cognizant of the “Right Livelihood” aspect of the Noble Eightfold Path (Phrabhavanaviriyakhun, 2008). Work is a major time use of an individual's life and better wellbeing will depend on changing physical and social conditions and production activities and consequences so as to enhance the joy of co-

970

P.L. Daniels / Ecological Economics 69 (2010) 962–972

operative work. There is evidence of such ethical change in the pronounced shift towards “peer-to-peer (P2P) production” associated with information and communication technologies and on-line, open source collaborative design (Bauwens, 2006). This third or distributed mode of production has immense potential for positive spillovers (akin to the PIGS) with its negligible marginal cost of information transfer and intellectual synergy. The selﬁsh monetary gain motives of neoclassical thinking are effectively replaced by respect and status beneﬁts from giving and valuable contribution for the collective and interconnected good. In the right context, this cooperative production mode seems more than adequate in displacing competitive-based outcomes. P2P production has been openly linked to ethical changes associated with Buddhist notions of sustainable economies (Bauwens, 2006). The Buddhism and business interface is a primary example of the profound potential for positive change from actions informed by the assumption of pervasive interdependence. As with many views on corporate social responsibility, morality and business vitality can coexist and prosper under the Buddhist economic model (DesJardins, 2007). Self-interest is compatible with concern for well-being across the three interconnected realms. The actual welfare of producers is not a product of short-term proﬁt maximization but derives from effective and efﬁcient activities and material outcomes that supply goods and services imparting genuine well-being at a society-wide level (and at fair prices) over the long-term. This is not just a response to coercive policy and regulation – or even market survival, customer demand and patronage, and inter-ﬁrm and intra-ﬁrm trust and operability – but stems from awareness and deeper value change in people in their producer roles in society. Response 9. Encourage the liberation of personal time as the ultimate resource required for compassionate and loving-kindness relationships. The drive for success based on material accumulation and control of people and energy has led to poverty in perhaps the most important of the resources available for the potential improvement human wellbeing–time. The substitution of time consumed for self-interested material gain by that involved in reﬂection and activity with compassion and “other-regarding” positive consequences is central feature of the Buddhist outlook (Thich Nhat Hanh, 2008). Time can be considered a gift and a fundamental requirement for careful and welfare-enhancing choices and actions based on compassion and loving-kindness in taking care of oneself and other people. Baucells and Sarin (2007, p.31) note that “Time is the ultimate ﬁnite resource; therefore, its allocation between work and leisure to improve happiness needs further empirical and theoretical inquiry. Restoring a harmonious balance between work and leisure is a precondition to ‘catching’ the elusive goal of happiness.” Obsession with consumption, and the work to afford that consumption, shrinks time. Average hours worked person grew by almost 20% in the United States between 1980 and 2000. Paradoxically, “free time” is currently treasured as the most important priority of life in the U.S. — well above money (Kuan, 2008). Of course, there are many structural constraints (for example, housing needs and costs) and collective effort would have to combine with expectations and motives to reduce this imperative. 7. Conclusion In this article, an integrated systems framework has been developed for comprehensively analyzing major environmental problems like climate change in terms of the ethical and welfare dimensions that are considered to be critical under a world view such as Buddhism. In part 1, the innovations embedded in the heuristic framework include the integration of the two major environmental assessment tools (DPSIR and extended IPAT approaches) with a key role of values and well-being. The sociocultural extensions to the basic biophysical-economic model show how Buddhism provides a clear analysis of the problematic

sources of driving forces behind behavior. Throughout, the resulting tool has been used to demonstrate and specify how the Buddhist world view can make a valuable contribution towards effectively addressing anthropogenic climate change. The integrated systems framework provides an ideal basis for understanding and studying the fundamental sources, relationships and possible responses to climate change, in terms of human beliefs, thought, behavior and social patterns and structures. The mode of analysis has had much in common with ecological economics — with primary conceptual and methodological roles ascribed to ethics, the ecologization of society, social capital and sustainability, and ultimate means and ends via an extensive consideration of well-being and the goals of human endeavor. In this concluding paper, the focus has been upon using the systems framework to demonstrate how Buddhist and related world views can feed into appropriate and effective responses to the impending challenges of climate change. With knowledge of the underlying nature of beliefs, goals, wants and choices, appropriate strategies can be designed and implemented. The strategic contribution from Buddhism draws from the 3rd and 4th Noble Truths and Eight-fold Path which have a series of practical themes to guide such a response. The focus has been upon overall afﬂuence (A), and the link between types of consumption (N) and associated the environmenttechnology relations (T) as the driving force factor groups behind climate change. However, this has been delineated to a need for targeting N and T for climate sustainability given the practical limitations of attempting to constrain overall growth in current global economic conditions (especially for lower-income nations). General themes that pervade the Buddhist contribution include the capability for enhanced well-being through reducing the socioeconomic metabolism via moderated consumption and the full analysis of economic, environmental and welfare impacts of different types of consumption and lifestyle and associated technologies. Adaptive principles for positive change include non-harm, the Middle Way and minimum intervention and disruption of the natural world. Using the Buddhism-inspired principles in reference to the integrated systems framework, nine speciﬁc inter-related strategies have been outlined — ranging from extensive research into the nature and measurement of well-being and biophysical and economic chain effects of economic activity and technologies, to policy to encourage the technical and economic means for embedding well-being effects into behavior, to the provision of mechanisms to sway values to be more consistent with sustainability and better welfare in a highly interconnected universe. The discussion concludes that Buddhism does indeed have much to offer in terms of the identiﬁcation, acceptance and implementation of appropriate and effective responses to climate change.7 Many of the strategic recommendations from a Buddhist-inspired analysis are similar to those from conventional environmental or ecological economics. However, the unique and useful aspect of Buddhism, over more secular approaches, is that it provides a viable option to build and ﬁll the missing logical and practical ethical basis for sustainability. The secular path alone has not been convincing as a sufﬁcient means towards sustainability, real improvements in human well-being and survival itself (Zadek, 1993). A shift away from material and energy-intensive economies would have complex and contingent implications for employment (and social stability). Global evidence for more sustainable, dematerialized economies does not suggest that such changes bring unemployment and economic malaise. Competitive losses in environment-intensive activity may cause structural unemployment but it is unlikely that these sectors and related technologies would persist in new, 7 Given space limitations, we have not surveyed the many possible aspects and interpretations of Buddhism that can be considered to inhibit required social and economic change for sustainability. For more on this issue see Daniels (2005) and Pryor (1991).

P.L. Daniels / Ecological Economics 69 (2010) 962–972

sustainable economies. A more fundamental aspect relating to Buddhism would be the questioning of the need for long working hours and high income for positional or adaptive goods and services. “Low-intervention economies” can still have vital levels of activity and employment providing real well-being enhancements across society. The most important contributions from Buddhism include its discourse on the nature of human well-being and centrality attached to interdependence which explains the adverse consequences of anthropogenic disruption and disturbance of the processes and ﬂows of the natural environment. Its real strength is in the guidelines that it provides for consumption, and related production imperatives and choices driving the environmental pressures behind climate change. Its thematic response is focused upon moderated and mindful consumption drawing upon scientiﬁc understanding and the fundamental idea that minimizing selﬁsh external attachment leading to disturbance of nature, is in the best interests of people and societies. Awareness and knowledge provide the basis for mindfulness and action, and behavioral change. These changes invoke the need for more simple living and time–space activity patterns, and consumption bundles and levels that involve less environmental demands and the freeing up of personal time away from the ineffective pursuit of material success focused on self-interest. Zadek (1993, p.8) aptly describes the Buddhist economic approach: Buddhism acknowledges the need for production and consumption, and accepts that this involves processes of negotiation, trading, acquisition of capital, and so on. At the same time, Buddhism challenges the individual (and society as a whole) to contextualize these processes in Buddhist values, including for example the idea of Right Thought, Action and Livelihood The objective of economics should shift explicitly to the actual welfare consequences of creating “wealth” from nature. Wealth must be assessed in terms of its full social net beneﬁt (“karmic spillovers”) and attendant impact on actual well-being. Well-being, rather than wealth accumulation, is the variable to be maximized in effective economic systems (Phrabhavanaviriyakhun, 2008). Maximum wellbeing with minimum consumption and nature impact is the essential Buddhist economic rationale (Schumacher, 1973). Beyond direct economic facets, Buddhism has many other roles in the task of addressing climate change as part of its more general potential offerings for sustainable development. Examples include its envisioning capacity and its support for social capital centered around community building and compassionate interdependence — traits that are critical for sustainable development. Many “developing” nations – including several where Buddhism prevails – seem bent on the consumption-desire path that is increasingly looking imprudent for those who have followed it before. A certain threshold of material need fulﬁllment is necessary to avoid poverty and for compassionate generosity. However, with hope, the experience of the past could be used with the essence of Buddhist world views to help direct new forms of economic development that are more sustainable and better at engendering real improvements in welfare. While acceptance of its basic precepts requires a level of intuitive appeal that will not sit comfortably for some scientists, the world view of Buddhism as a practical philosophy for sustainable living is replete with notions in accordance with those now central to the contemporary array of environmental, social and ethical sciences. The nondogmatic, empirical and accommodating nature of its philosophy will strengthen its potential to contribute to the profound, but necessary, socioeconomic changes for sustained well-being. Individual liberty, entrepreneurship and markets – guided by appropriate sustainability ethics and mindfulness that make up the essence of Buddhism – are likely to play a key role in any paradigm capable of coping with climate change.

971

References Alkire, S., Santos, M., Ura, K., 2008. Gross National Happiness and Poverty in Bhutan: Applying the GNH Index Methodology to explore Poverty. (OPHI RP4a, November 2008). Paper presented at the Gross National Happiness Conference in Bhutan, at 26 November 2008. Bardi, U., 2009. Peak oil: the four stages of a new idea. Energy 34 (3), 323–326. Baucells, M., Sarin, R.K., 2007. Does More Money Buy You More Happiness? Decisions, Operations, and Technology Management. Paper RS16. http://repositories.cdlib. org/anderson/dotm/RS162007. Bauwens, M., 2006. The Political Economy of Peer Production. Post-autistic Economics Review (37) article 3, http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue37/Bauwens37. htm. Bhikkhu Bodhi, 1987. Foreword. In: Sandell, K. (Ed.), Buddhist Perspectives on the Ecocrisis. Buddhist Publication Society, Kandy, Sri Lanka, pp. iv–v. Brundtland, G., 1987. Our Common Future. World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford University Press, Oxford, England. Carolan, M.S., 2004. Ecological modernization theory: what about consumption? Society and Natural Resources 17 (3), 247–260. Daly, H., Cobb, J., 1989. For the Common Good. Beacon Press, Boston. Daniels, P.L., 2002. Approaches for quantifying the metabolism of physical economies: a comparative survey: part II: review of individual approaches. Journal of Industrial Ecology 6 (1), 65–88. Daniels, P.L., 2003. Buddhist economics and the environment: material ﬂow analysis and the moderation of society's metabolism. International Journal of Social Economics 30 (1/2), 8–33. Daniels, P.L., 2005. Economic systems and the Buddhist world view: the 21st century nexus. Journal of Socio-Economics 34 (2), 245–268. Daniels, P.L., 2007. Buddhism and the transformation to sustainable economies. Society and Economy 29 (2), 155–180. DesJardins, J.R., 2007. Business, Ethics, and the Environment: Imagining a Sustainable Future. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Diener, E., Suh, E., Lucas, R., Smith, H., 1999. Subjective well-being: three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin 125, 276–302. Foran, B., Lenzen, M., Dey, C., 2005. Balancing Act: a Triple Bottom Line Analysis of the Australian Economy. Canberra, A.C.T., CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems and University of Sydney. Frank, R., 1997. The frame of reference as a public good. The Economic Journal 445, 1832–1847. Frank, R.H., 2003. Does absolute income matter? Presented at The Paradoxes of Happiness in Economics conference Milan, Italy, March 21. Gabrielsen, P., Bosch, P., 2003. Environmental Indicators: Typology and Use in Reporting. European Environment Agency. EEA internal working paper. Gintis, H., 2000. Beyond homo economicus: evidence from experimental economics. Ecological Economics 35 (3), 311–322. Graedel, T., Allenby, B., 1995. Industrial Ecology. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Gunasekara, V., 1982. Basic Buddhism: An Outline of the Buddha's Teaching. Buddhist Society of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. Hirsch, F., 1976. Social Limits to Growth. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. Huber, J., 2000. Towards industrial ecology: sustainable development as a concept of ecological modernization. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 2 (4), 269–285. Kuan, I., 2008. Americans Value Free Time over Money: Survey. http://www.reuters. com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSN0145197720080502. May 2, 2008. Accessed August 5, 2008. Layard, R., 2005. Happiness: Lessons from a New Science. Allen Lane, London. Ling, T., 1969. Buddhist factors in population growth and control. Population Studies 23 (1), 53–60. Lorek, S., Spangenberg, J., 2001. Indicators of environmentally sustainable household consumption. International Journal of Sustainable Development 4 (1), 101–120. Mainwaring, L., 2001. Environmental values and the frame of reference. Ecological Economics 38 (3), 391–401. Marinoff, L., 2007. The Middle Way: Finding Happiness in a World of Extremes. Sterling Publishing, New York. Mendis, P. 1993. Buddhist equilibrium: The theory of middle path for sustainable development. St. Paul. Staff Paper P93-2. Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Minnesota. January. Moro, M., Brereton, F., Ferreira, S., Clinch, J., 2008. Ranking quality of life using subjective well-being data. Ecological Economics 65 (3), 448–460. Narada, M., 1966. Buddhism in a Nutshell. Buddhist Publication Society, Kandy, Ceylon. North, D.C., 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Perez, P., Batten, D.F., 2006. Complex Science for a Complex World: Exploring Human Ecosystems with Agents. From Publisher's home page http://epress.anu.edu.au Accessed Feb 12, 2008. Phillimore, J., 2001. Schumpeter, Schumacher and the greening of technology. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 13 (1), 23–37. Phrabhavanaviriyakhun, 2008. Buddhist economics. UrbanDharma.org http://www. urbandharma.org/udharma5/buddhisteco.html. Pryor, F., 1991. A Buddhist economic system — in practice. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology 50 (1), 17–32. Reisch, L.A., Røpke, I., 2004. The Ecological Economics of Consumption. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK. Sachs, W., Loske, R., Linz, M., 1998. Greening the North: A Post-industrial Blueprint for Ecology and Equity. Zed Books, London.

972

P.L. Daniels / Ecological Economics 69 (2010) 962–972

Sangharakshita, 2007. The Buddha's Noble Eightfold Path (Buddhist Wisdom for Today). Windhorse Publications, Birmingham, UK. Schumacher, E.F., 1973. Small is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as if People Mattered. Abacus, London. Searle, D.R., 1995. Population growth, resource consumption, and the environment: seeking a common vision for a troubled world. Centre for Studies in Religion and Society Un., Victoria, Brit Col. Simon, H., 1959. Theories of decision making in economics and behavioral science. American Economic Review 49 (3), 253–283. Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T., 2006. Livestock's Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options. FAO, Rome. Thich Nhat Hanh, V., 2008. Protecting families from being broken. In: Manh That, L., Nhat Tu, T. (Eds.), Family Problems and the Buddhist Response. Culture and Information Press, Hanoi. Tideman, S., 2000. Enterprise and development in the 21st Century: Compassion or competition? A forum discussion with H.H. the Dalai Lama, Asoka, the Netherlands, 2000. Tideman, S., 2001. Gross National Happiness: Towards Buddhist Economics. Adapted from paper presented to a forum with leaders and scholars from Bhutan, in the Netherlands, January, 2001. Tomer, J.F., 2003. Beyond the rationality of economic man, toward the true rationality of man. Discussion Paper. Department of Economics and Finance, Riverdale. New York.

Tukker, A., 2008. Sustainability: a multi-interpretable notion — the book's normative stance. In: Tukker, A., Charter, M., et al. (Eds.), System Innovation for Sustainability: 1. Perspectives on Radical Changes to Sustainable Consumption and Production. Greenleaf, Shefﬁeld. Welsch, H., 2009. Implications of happiness research for environmental economics. Ecological Economics 68, 2735–2742. Yamamoto, S., 1998. Contribution of Buddhism to environmental thoughts. The Journal of Oriental Studies 8, 144–173. Yamamoto, S., 2003. Mahayana Buddhism and environmental ethics: from the perspective of the consciousness-only doctrine. In: Dockett, K., Dudley-Grant, G., Bankart, P. (Eds.), Psychology and Buddhism: from Individual to Global Community (International and Cultural Psychology). Kluwer Academic, New York, pp. 239–255. Zadek, S., 1993. The practice of Buddhist economics: another view. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology 52 (4), 433–446. Zohar, D., 2002. Leadership physicist. In: Brown, T., Crainer, S., et al. (Eds.), Business Minds. Financial Times — Prentice Hall, New York. Zsolnai, L., 2007. Why Ethics Needs Spirituality. Social Science Research Network. http://ssrn.com/paper=984775. Accessed June 20, 2007.

The economics of climate change: methods and ...