34
being reduced as well. Also, to the extent that virgin resources become more expensive, recycling will be encouraged by the price mechanism.
Such an oversimplification is taken on by mainstream economists. This kind of
argument needs one condition to be fulfilled: the price mechanism must work properly. If private property rights exist in those things where the mechanism has control, then only things that people own can be exchanged under the described price
mechanism. Mainstream economists state that environmental problems are not the
consequence of economic growth. They argue that such problems are the consequence of inappropriate patterns of economic activity. This would not arise if relationships between the economy and environment were determined by a properly
functioning price mechanism. So, the problem is not in the economic growth but in
achieving the pattern of economic growth that assigns a properly functioning price
mechanism (Common 1988). The consequences of such thinking are not fair to
people at different points in time; growth, however, remains the ‘mantra’ for mainstream economics.
The Limits to Growth (Meadows et al. 1972) belongs among the influential pioneers’ publications that contradict the mainstream economics view. The study forecasts the collapse of the system resulting from exponential growth until it hits its
environmental limits. The authors recommend leaving economic growth as a policy
objective. The study was met with strong criticism from economists arguing that the
computer model of the world economic system operated with a static price mechanism. It meant that the mechanism could not accommodate growth to environmental
constrains. Nevertheless, the publication contributed to widespread interest about
environmental problems in the early 1970s.
The study of Environmental Citizenship has a lot to do with the term sustainability, since it is understood to maintain the capacity of the joint economyenvironment system to continue to satisfy the needs and desires of humans for a
long time into the future (Common and Stagl 2005). Considering the word ‘maintaining’ (as defined in the above-mentioned study), one could suppose that the
capacity is enough. However, in case of a shortage, scholars could argue that the
capacity needs to be increased rather than maintained.
A purely environmental point of view would be difficult to maintain since social
issues are at least as (if not more so) crucial as that environmental. Except for a relatively sufficient level of prosperity in some nations, mass poverty can be found
around the globe. Again, mainstream economic thinking sees economic growth as
the proper tool to fight poverty.
Here, another influential publication should be mentioned – Our Common Future
(also known as the ‘Brundtland Report’) reported by the World Commissions on
Environment and Development (WCED) in 1987. The report described the extent of
poverty as well as the various threats to sustainability. According to Panayiota
(2012), the report recognised that the environmental limits to economic growth in
industrialised and industrialising societies existed and claimed that poverty reduces
sustainability and accelerates environmental pressures – creating a need for balance
between economy and ecology. It argued that sustainable development is needed as
a new kind of economic growth with much less environmental impact which
V. Kaputa et al.
being reduced as well. Also, to the extent that virgin resources become more expensive, recycling will be encouraged by the price mechanism.
Such an oversimplification is taken on by mainstream economists. This kind of
argument needs one condition to be fulfilled: the price mechanism must work properly. If private property rights exist in those things where the mechanism has control, then only things that people own can be exchanged under the described price
mechanism. Mainstream economists state that environmental problems are not the
consequence of economic growth. They argue that such problems are the consequence of inappropriate patterns of economic activity. This would not arise if relationships between the economy and environment were determined by a properly
functioning price mechanism. So, the problem is not in the economic growth but in
achieving the pattern of economic growth that assigns a properly functioning price
mechanism (Common 1988). The consequences of such thinking are not fair to
people at different points in time; growth, however, remains the ‘mantra’ for mainstream economics.
The Limits to Growth (Meadows et al. 1972) belongs among the influential pioneers’ publications that contradict the mainstream economics view. The study forecasts the collapse of the system resulting from exponential growth until it hits its
environmental limits. The authors recommend leaving economic growth as a policy
objective. The study was met with strong criticism from economists arguing that the
computer model of the world economic system operated with a static price mechanism. It meant that the mechanism could not accommodate growth to environmental
constrains. Nevertheless, the publication contributed to widespread interest about
environmental problems in the early 1970s.
The study of Environmental Citizenship has a lot to do with the term sustainability, since it is understood to maintain the capacity of the joint economyenvironment system to continue to satisfy the needs and desires of humans for a
long time into the future (Common and Stagl 2005). Considering the word ‘maintaining’ (as defined in the above-mentioned study), one could suppose that the
capacity is enough. However, in case of a shortage, scholars could argue that the
capacity needs to be increased rather than maintained.
A purely environmental point of view would be difficult to maintain since social
issues are at least as (if not more so) crucial as that environmental. Except for a relatively sufficient level of prosperity in some nations, mass poverty can be found
around the globe. Again, mainstream economic thinking sees economic growth as
the proper tool to fight poverty.
Here, another influential publication should be mentioned – Our Common Future
(also known as the ‘Brundtland Report’) reported by the World Commissions on
Environment and Development (WCED) in 1987. The report described the extent of
poverty as well as the various threats to sustainability. According to Panayiota
(2012), the report recognised that the environmental limits to economic growth in
industrialised and industrialising societies existed and claimed that poverty reduces
sustainability and accelerates environmental pressures – creating a need for balance
between economy and ecology. It argued that sustainable development is needed as
a new kind of economic growth with much less environmental impact which
V. Kaputa et al.