Unsustainable Development: Could it be a Ponzi Scheme?

This paper explores the extent to which analogies can be drawn between unsustainable development and a Ponzi scheme. A Ponzi scheme is a type of fraudulent investment strategy and an extreme form of market failure caused by ill-informed decisions based on questionable criteria; the driving force is individual and collective deception and self-deception. Unsustainable development is possible because economic activities are frequently distanced, spatially and temporally, from their associated environmental impacts. As in a classic Ponzi scheme, this creates a separation between enjoyment of benefits and the disbenefit in the form of eventual unsustainability; the deception relates to disregard for, or concealment of, disbenefits and their inequitable incidence. Analogies with Ponzi schemes can be perceived or implied in relation to resource depletion, environmental degradation or unsustainable living standards, and also when questions are raised concerning the justification of interventions ostensibly to promote sustainability. Most environmental concerns, particularly with medium- and long-term impacts, have the potential to generate such perceptions: examples include climate change, nuclear waste, hazardous wastes, toxic substances, soil degradation, declining biodiversity, and fish stock depletion. Perspectives are influenced by the definition and scope of sustainability, the nature of technological change, time frames and time inconsistency, and concepts of equity. These factors reflect underlying tensions between the pursuit of sustainability and the free play of market forces, exacerbated by a dissonance between individual and collective rationality. The dilemmas are compounded by uncertainty, exacerbated by the inherent unpredictability of discontinuities. Consciousness, knowledge and awareness differ both conceptually and in degree, such that Ponzi-ism may even be inadvertent. The ultimate question then is what is known – when, by whom and in what way? The remedies lie in informed decision making, consensus on the key issues of equity and efficiency, and an explicit recognition of environmental property rights

Unsustainable Development: Could it be a Ponzi Scheme?

This paper explores the extent to which analogies can be drawn between unsustainable development and a Ponzi scheme. A Ponzi scheme is a type of fraudulent investment strategy and an extreme form of market failure caused by ill-informed decisions based on questionable criteria; the driving force is individual and collective deception and self-deception. Unsustainable development is possible because economic activities are frequently distanced, spatially and temporally, from their associated environmental impacts. As in a classic Ponzi scheme, this creates a separation between enjoyment of benefits and the disbenefit in the form of eventual unsustainability; the deception relates to disregard for, or concealment of, disbenefits and their inequitable incidence. Analogies with Ponzi schemes can be perceived or implied in relation to resource depletion, environmental degradation or unsustainable living standards, and also when questions are raised concerning the justification of interventions ostensibly to promote sustainability. Most environmental concerns, particularly with medium- and long-term impacts, have the potential to generate such perceptions: examples include climate change, nuclear waste, hazardous wastes, toxic substances, soil degradation, declining biodiversity, and fish stock depletion. Perspectives are influenced by the definition and scope of sustainability, the nature of technological change, time frames and time inconsistency, and concepts of equity. These factors reflect underlying tensions between the pursuit of sustainability and the free play of market forces, exacerbated by a dissonance between individual and collective rationality. The dilemmas are compounded by uncertainty, exacerbated by the inherent unpredictability of discontinuities. Consciousness, knowledge and awareness differ both conceptually and in degree, such that Ponzi-ism may even be inadvertent. The ultimate question then is what is known – when, by whom and in what way? The remedies lie in informed decision making, consensus on the key issues of equity and efficiency, and an explicit recognition of environmental property rights

Scientists Must Write

x + 176 hlm.; 21 c

Students Must Write- a guide to better in course awork and examinatiions

149 hal;ill;21,5 c