"Green Economics"
David Pearce analyzes the features and possible outcome of green economics.
David Pearce analyzes the features and possible outcome of green economics.
William Aiken examines the tradition of human rights and their role in our currently increasing environmental awareness.
Michael Everett examines how environmental movements develop and how they deal with economic counterforces and motivate political actors to pass effective environmental regulations.
Paul Craig, Harold Glasser, and Willett Kempton interview senior policy advisors to four European governments active in global climate change negotiations and the UNCED (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development) process.
John Adams discusses the resurgence of cost-benefit analysis and its failures relating to lack of progress and environmental damage caused by major transport projects.
Shrader-Frechette and McCoy use examples related to preservation versus development, hunting versus animal rights, and controversies over pest control, to show that, because ecology is conceptually and theoretically underdetermined, environmental values often influence the practice of ecological science.
Jack L. Knetsch discusses the contingent valuation of people’s willingness to pay in relation to environmental valuation.
Alastair Macintosh uses Plato and Bacon as yardsticks to consider the British government’s White Paper on science together with government research council reports as a basis for critiquing current science policy and its intensifying orientation, British and worldwide, towards industrial and military development.
Markus J. Peterson and Tarla Rai Peterson make an argument for the synergy between deep, feminist, and scientific ecology towards improving environmental policy.
Wilfred Beckerman and Joanna Pasek discuss criticisms of contingent valuation (CV) and allied techniques for estimating the intensity of peoples’ preferences for the environment, concluding that little progress will be made until both sides in the debate recognise what is valid in their opponents’ arguments.