Talk:Green economics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Prologue
Hi if you want an article explaining what green economics is and how it fits to other writing - read Green Economics Setting the scene by Miriam Kennet and Volker Heinemann, (2006) which can be found on the Inderscience website - www.inderscience.com.ijge or go to the enormous The Green Economics Institute website www.greeneconomics.org.uk where you will find everything you need on most aspects of green economics, however, we are always pleased to hear of more you might want added, just email us on greeneconomicsinstitute@yahoo.com with text you feel is useful. The article, mentioned above, sets out all the issues on green economics in a clear way and is fully referenced to academic standard.
However I agree the wickipedia page is unnecesarily pedantic and laboured and covers all sorts of points without any clear vision.I suggest it should be edited hard, and the awkward sentences and irrelevant bits deleted. ( miriam green economics)
Gibberish? : I am looking at the following paragraph (where is this from??? under money heading:
"There is an intrinsic divergent tendency within the capitalist system - that is, for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer, through to property of money to be lent out at interest. Green economics will seek to moderate this tendency, producing a convergent economy where wealth tends towards the median value."
What does "through to property of money to be lent out at interest" mean? Simply changing "through to" to "due to" still didn't seem to fix it so I dont grasp its intent clearly enough to translate it into English.
Knotwork 19:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Question: what really is the best title for this page? (Remember, capitalization sticks.) It was originally at Green economists, and was at some point moved to the singular Green economist. There's also a redirect from Green economics. Green Economism strikes me as odd-sounding, and picks up zero hits on google. --Brion
Uh I cant get redirect to work-the help files arent very useful-it says Green economics already is created-and i guess cuz of all this redirect crap
Think of it like so... Green economist or Green economics
Hmmmm-how many people go to the encylopedia for an entry on a particular (yet unnamed) green economist and want to read about green economics...yep-green economics should be the title Lir 06:16 Oct 4, 2002 (UTC)
- Patience, grasshopper. I've deleted the offending pile-of-redirects and renamed the page. --Brion 06:25 Oct 4, 2002 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me the connection between green economics and cognitive science? I'm particularly confused why people seem to associate George Lakoff with the subject. --Ryguasu 01:48 Nov 25, 2002 (UTC)
[edit] Apparent copyright infringement removed
I've removed a large chunk of material originally added by User:Emphazy in this edit (which was later moved to the influeces section by User:Mydogategodshat). The text appears to be lifted from here. -- Hadal 03:39, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
[edit] gibberish
The green economists share broader ecological and social concerns with capitalism itself. - and seek a new political economy entirely, with one commonly shared objective being to reform instruments of money supply, aligning inflation rates (which set the value of money itself) to ecological and social criteria to overcome "the three deficits: environment, social, and financial."
What does this mean? Are green economists really fundamentally concerned about the "inflation rate"? Surely the thought must be the real interest rate, which is not influenced by monetary policy except in the short run. Either way, this statement makes no sense. Wolfman 00:03, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[edit] right greens
Can we have a name of a right green? rather than just the vague assurance they exist? Maybe they deserve an article of their own! --Christofurio 13:54, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Green_economics&curid=47160&diff=35174238&oldid=35171945
I don't make much sense of this, but I don't have much of the background to follow it. To me, the most important thing of all is to keep the Earth inhabitable. Some things that I know, like the principles of population growth and the conservation of energy, make this appear to be difficult. Buddhists and scientists have a common concern here, but it is hard to communicate from such different points of view.
(I heard the Dalai Lama talking to Stanford professors, so I know that it is not impossible.) David R. Ingham 07:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Confusing to read
As someone who is not familiar with 'green economics', I was reading this article from the viewpoint of a newbie and was having difficulty with the jerky writing style and almost random leap from topic to topic. For instance, the two sections, "Can the green go global" and "fight global" seem useless to me because they fail to answer their own headers. Also, there is so much jargon strewn throughout this article that many sentences become meaningless to the average reader. I'm referring to phrases like "ecological flow" and "truth-binding". Finally, the economics of this section only gets a cursory mention. Perhaps this is the nature of the subject, but I was hoping for a more clear, logical discussion of how economics should relate to ecological subjects (assuming that is what green economics is about).
Overall, I came out of this article learning a bunch of random stuff pertaining to the subject of green economics, but not really learning much about the economic part of green economics. I think that, at the very least, this article should be cleaned up so that it is easier to read and has more of a logical organization.
Does anyone else agree?
>> I agree. I just saw the term "green economist" and found this article after googling it. This article didn't provide me with any proper understanding of "green economics" or "green economist". I suggest this article be edited so that it can be useful to "newbies". Thank you.
I agree. I think we need a structural, methodical approach to the subject, and the present stuff can be relegated to a subsection along the lines of "green economists in the world of academia". At risk of appearing immodest, may I suggest this link http://www.greenhealth.org.uk/GreenEconLonger.htm as a possible starting place for a structural approach? It is the Overview of Green Economics article that appeared in the first journal of the International Journal of Green Economics.Doc Richard 07:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I think this article should be scrapped on account of being original research. I have not heard the term 'green economics' before, although the same subject matter has been covered previously by economists, ecologists and other people.
It is also blatantly POV, eg: Green economists struggle to understand why humans set the value of such commodities as gold higher than that of nature. This sentence implies that society's regard of gold as being more valuable than "nature" (not defined further) is undesirable. Perhaps Green economists have not heard of the term externalities - I don't think that even they will struggle grasping its concepts.Kranksy 07:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
