Bazin, Damien

Howarth, Richard B.

Université de Montréal

 Éthique et économique/Ethics and Economics, 2 (1), 2004,  1 
http://ethique-economique.org/ 
INTERVIEW 
Interview of Richard B. HOWARTH  
23 April 2004 
 
 
        Richard B. Howarth1                   _ 
By/Par      Dr. Damien BAZIN 
 
 
M. Richard B. HOWARTH 
Dartmouth College 
Environmental Studies Program 
HB 6182 Steele Hall 
Hanover, New Hamshire 03755, USA 
 
 
INTERVIEW 
 
Damien Bazin (D.B.): -“Do you think that responsibility in its original form, i.e. in its 
Kantian acceptance, could be of use in the fields of environment and economics if 
one is to aim at the long term protection of nature?” 
 
Richard B. Howarth (R.B.H.):-“In general, I think that deontological or Kantian ethics has 
very important implications for environmental economics. As you know, economists 
tend to think in terms of a consequentialist framework that seeks to balance benefits 
and costs. Important areas of environmental policy, however, are based on the legal 
and moral principle that individuals or society as a whole have a right to enjoy the 
benefits of environmental quality. From a Kantian perspective, this implies that 
polluters have a duty or responsibility to avoid imposing uncompensated 
environmental impacts on third parties. In my own work, I’ve argued that future 
generations have a right to share in the benefits of natural resources and 
environmental quality. If one accepts this premise, then it follows that present 
decision-makers have a responsibility to manage resources and the environment in a 
sustainable manner”. 
 
                                            
1 A short biography follows the interview. 
Interview of Richard B. HOWARTH 
Éthique et économique/Ethics and Economics, 2 (1), 2004,  
http://ethique-economique.org/ 
2 
 
D.B.: -“On a more personal note, concerning your works, do you think that it is possible to 
go beyond altruism in search of an economical ethics/ethical economics linked to 
environmental questions ? Do you believe that your model (Howarth-Norgaard 
1992) could be revised to accommodate the variable of responsibility? If so how?” 
 
R.B.H.: -“As I see it, it’s not only possible but indeed necessary to go beyond altruism in 
thinking about issues such as intergenerational fairness and its implications for 
environmental management. Kant, for example, emphasized that one’s duties are 
categorically distinct from one’s preferences, even one’s other-regarding 
preferences. My 1995 Land Economics paper focuses directly on that distinction in 
the context of the sustainability debate. In that paper, I argue that sustainability 
should be interpreted in terms of a duty to ensure that human well-being is non-
diminishing from generation to generation. Within the set of choices that are 
sustainable in this sense, I believe that it’s natural and appropriate for society to 
choose whether or not to make present sacrifices so that future generations can enjoy 
enhanced life opportunities. The 1992 paper I wrote with Richard Norgaard does not 
really address this issue. Instead, it simply shows that the environmental policies that 
we judge as “optimal” depends on the way we frame issues of intergenerational 
fairness. That finding led me into a deeper analysis of the underlying philosophical 
questions. 
 
 
D.B.: -“Do you believe that the works of economists, which attempt to integrate the works 
of authors from other disciplines such as philosophy (the works of Kant, Jonas, 
Ricoeur, Habermas and Levinas etc) are of any relevance?” 
 
R.B.H.: -“ I think that it’s very important for economists to integrate concepts and arguments 
from moral philosophy and other relevant disciplines. We sometimes forget that the 
classical political economists saw politics, economics, and ethics as one, integrated 
field. It was only in the late 19th century that the disciplines became differentiated in 
ways that allowed specialization but which, unfortunately, also produced 
fragmentation. I personally have been drawn most strongly to the writings of Kant 
and Rawls, though Habermas’ work on discourse ethics strikes me as very important 
to issues of social choice. Certainly Amartya Sen’s work is both relevant and 
influential in fields like development economics and environmental economics. Still, 
the challenge is to boil down the philosophical concepts to a level that is well 
matched to the needs of modelling and institutional analysis.  
 
 
D.B.: -“In your opinion, what are going to be the major axes of environmental studies in 
the years to come? The 1980s largely dealt with global threats such as the green 
house effect and sustainable development. What do you think we shall be dealing 
with in the new millenim?”  
 
R.B.H.: - “ Certainly climate change will remain a crucial challenge in the 21st century. 
While environmental scientists have understood the broad outlines of this issue for at 
Interview of Richard B. HOWARTH 
Éthique et économique/Ethics and Economics, 2 (1), 2004,  
http://ethique-economique.org/ 
3 
least 25 years, the impacts and implications of climate change are becoming more 
tangible and salient to decision-makers. Addressing the climate change issue will 
require major changes in energy production and utilization. So I’d expect debates 
over energy policy to rise in importance in the coming decades. The second main 
issue that I’d emphasize is the conservation of endangered species and unique 
communities and ecosystems. In both terrestrial and marine ecosystems, human 
disturbances associated with land-use, resource consumption, and pollution are 
having pervasive environmental impacts. Designing governance strategies to address 
this issue is and will likely remain a big and interesting challenge. 
 
D.B.: -“Your work mainly deals with the preservation of nature: What made you choose 
this topic and have you noticed much evolution in the field between now and then?” 
 
R.B.H.: -“ I think of myself as a conservationist rather than a preservationist. By this, I mean 
that the challenge is to manage the links between human and natural systems in ways 
that simultaneously promote human well-being and ecological sustainability. In 
some cases, this implies a need to preserve ecosystems in the sense of minimizing 
human impacts. But the preservationist goal of taking humans out of ecosystems is 
not always realistic. It can even be damaging in certain disturbed ecosystems in 
which active management can be necessary to restore and sustain ecosystem 
functioning. 
 
My interest in environmental issues goes back to my early childhood. I’ve always 
experienced nature as a source of inspiration and aesthetic power. I worry that the 
emergence of today’s consumer culture has cut many people off from a rich sense of 
connectance with the natural world. This, along with the decline of community, has 
been a negative that partially offsets the gains society has made in terms of material 
prosperity. 
 
Certainly the field of environmental studies has developed substantially since my 
years as a student in the 1980s. In environmental economics, there’s increasing 
acceptance that environmental issues have social, moral, and ecological aspects that 
push economists to think in new and creative ways. The old barriers to 
interdisciplinary work have eased considerably. This means that environmental 
issues can be understood and addressed in their own terms, drawing together 
concepts and methods from various related disciplines. This is clearly apparent in 
contemporary scholarship, policy discourse, and in the classroom as well. 
 
 
D.B.: - “What in your opinion is the most suited type of public policy in today’s world, if 
we are to protect the environment?”. 
 
R.B.H.: -“ I don’t think there’s any single approach to environmental policy that should be 
applied across-the-board. Instead, the key is to design mechanisms that are 
responsive to the particular challenges posed by a given issue. Where appropriate, 
it’s desirable to use market-based incentives to enhance flexibility and to reduce the 
costs of environmental compliance. At the same time, however, governments can 
Interview of Richard B. HOWARTH 
Éthique et économique/Ethics and Economics, 2 (1), 2004,  
http://ethique-economique.org/ 
4 
sometimes play a crucial role in the development and adoption of “green” 
technologies. 
 
My work emphasizes the need to set environmental quality goals in a way that is 
morally grounded and sensitive to people’s rights and interests. One can approach 
this issue as a matter of identifying the “right” moral principles. Alternatively, one 
might follow the path described by authors like Mark Sagoff, who focuses on the 
importance of civic discourse in negotiating shared values and responsibilities. 
Interview of Richard B. HOWARTH 
Éthique et économique/Ethics and Economics, 2 (1), 2004,  
http://ethique-economique.org/ 
5 
Richard B. Howarth2 
 
Rich Howarth is an environmental economist whose work focuses on issues of energy use, 
climate change, and ecological conservation. His research and teaching are based on the 
view that good economic analysis is essential to understand the causes of environmental 
problems and to design effective solutions that take into account the multiple objectives of 
environmental policy. At the same time, environmental issues have moral, behavioral, and 
scientific dimensions that are sometimes in tension with the assumptions of textbook 
economics. This highlights the need to connect economics with a broad-based, 
interdisciplinary approach to environmental problem-solving.  
 
Professor Howarth's research program emphasizes themes such as:  
 
* The role of discounting, sustainability, and intergenerational fairness in evaluating 
long-term environmental policies.  
* Mathematical models of the relationship between economic growth, the natural 
environment, and human well-being.  
* The role of public policies in promoting energy efficiency and the adoption of 
environmentally benign energy technologies.  
 
Professor Howarth was educated at Cornell, the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and the 
University of California at Berkeley. Prior to his appointment at Dartmouth in 1998, he held 
positions at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the University of California at 
Santa Cruz.  
BOOKS 
 
2003 R.B. Howarth and D. Rothman (editors). Special issue on “Climate Change and 
Ecological Economics.” International Journal of Sustainable Development 6: 263-
392. 
2002 K.A. Brekke and _______. Status, Growth, and the Environment: Goods as Symbols 
in Applied Welfare Economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. 
2001 D.C. Hall and _______ (editors). The Long-term Economics of Climate Change: 
Beyond a Doubling of Greenhouse Gas Concentrations. Advances in the Economics 
of Environmental Resources, Volume 3. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 
1997 _______ (editor).  Special issue on “Defining Sustainability.”  Land Economics 73: 
445-622. 
1992 L. Schipper and S. Meyers with _______ and R. Steiner.  Energy Efficiency and 
Human Activity — Past Trends, Future Prospects.  Cambridge:  Cambridge 
University Press. 
                                            
2 The following informations were found on Pr Howarth webpage at : 
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~rhowarth/. More informations can be found at the same webpage. 


English

Interview of Richard B. HOWARTH

https://papyrus.bib.umontreal.ca/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1866/3310/2004v2n1_Interview_HOWARTH.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Interview of Richard B. HOWARTH

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Université de Montréal