Some excerpts from the book:
Development – The accumulation of entropic capital in the hands of a single individual or a group of individuals for the purpose of enjoying its benefit in the present or in the future, thus, practically denying the access to the same entropic capital to the rest of the organisms in the world. This is the dominant mode of (economic) development as emphasized in occidental thinking, where the development of manasa (mind) is often neglected.
(This is the author’s understanding of the term "development" in its present use; within the paradigms of Physics.)
Entropic capital – The accumulated order found in nature which provides with the freedom to act (for any entity). Incidentally, entropic capital is the foremost of the factors of production encountered in economics, as without it other factors would be irrelevant. The "order" (and "freedom") created in nature mostly by solar activity, on which activities of humans and other life forms depend on. However, some of the "order" present in nature such as existence of Uranium actually predates birth of the sun and hence is not of solar origin.
Preface
The Orthodox view in the economy is that of constant progress and of impressive gains without limits. However, beneath this rosy outlook, there seems to be crisis in almost all important aspects of the economy, such as the increasing Ozone hole in the atmosphere, the impending fresh water crisis, the effects of global warming, the depletion of non-renewable resources, and the increasing desertification of arable land etc... Thus, a fundamental shift in the mainstream economic thinking is inevitable and a necessity.
This book is an outcome of one’s desire to understand the nature of things in the environment and its impact on the economy. It is also a consequence of the fact that some of us yearn to go back to our cultural roots. Hence, it is quite possible that this book may be classified more as an endeavor in Philosophy rather than in Economics. Consequently, this book may contain some inaccuracies as it may have a tendency to be ideologically biased. Thus, any comments from the Readers, particularly those which are in conflict with which are stated in this book, are most welcome. All such appropriate viewpoints would be necessarily incorporated into a future edition of this book with due acknowledgements.
Agra T. Wijeratne
Department of Physics
University of Sri Jayewardenepura
Gangodawila
Nugegoda
Sri Lanka
E mail: agraw@sjp.ac.lk.
Department of Physics
University of Sri Jayewardenepura
Gangodawila
Nugegoda
Sri Lanka
E mail: agraw@sjp.ac.lk.
Web Address: http://www.freewebs.com/agrawijeratne/
Other Links:
.......................................................................
**An article which appeared on the Island newspapers on 18/9/2007 **
Notes on “Notes on the Economy”
With reference to the article “Notes on the Economy” by Dr. Usvatte-aratchi, which appeared in the Island on 18th of September, I wish make some comments on it.
Dr. Usvatte-aratchi compares the price of oil with that of tea. However, tea is an energy-deficient and non-sustainable industry in its present form. Perhaps, it would be more appropriate, if oil is compared with that of natural rubber. Why the tea industry is not a sustainable is explained in my book “A Buddhist’s View on Sustainability / A Heretic’s Thoughts on the Economy”. Incidentally, what is important is whether an Economy is Sustainable or not, and not whether it is “Developed” or not. That is, it is more relevant to promote the concept of Human Sustainability (Index) rather than Human Development (Index).
Dr. Usvatte-aratchi makes a comment that oil prices are high. However, a large amount of oil is not needed to run an economy as emphasized in my work. For example, Prof. Perfecto and Dr. Badgley of University of Michigan have confirmed that “Organic farming can feed the world” (this article is available in the Web) and state that “In developing countries, food production could double or triple using organic farming…”. Present high intensity agriculture, which Dr. Usvatte-aratchi refers indirectly in the end of the article is largely based on oil and is non-sustainable on the long run. With increase in “oil” prices, the food prices are bound to increase, providing a further incentive for organic framing.
Further, the price of oil should be “high” if a sustainable form of economy is to be promoted. UNCTAD maintains that primary commodity prices should be high, hence, oil being a non-renewable resource, and should be sold at a premium. It is because of the fact that the present economic system is highly non-sustainable, that we complain that the oil prices are “high”.
I claim that when oil prices are low, there is a tendency for most commodity prices to be reduced (example: price of natural rubber), and people who benefit most are those from the “developed” countries in the world, who consume disproportionate amount of commodities and oil. Of course, the downside is that poor people suffer more when the oil prices are “high”.
Again, later on, Dr. Usvatte-aratchi mentions about “massive export of labor”; where countries like Sri Lanka benefit, although it is accompanied by high social cost. This “massive export of labor” is partly facilitated by the “high” oil prices. Of course, this process is not sustainable in the long run.
Dr. Usvatte-aratchi talks of inflationary pressures of subsidies in the Sri Lankan economy. The Present “free” education (introduced in 1940s) and “free” health system has become part and parcel of “subsidies” introduced into the Sri Lankan (Ceylonese) economic system. I believe that the turning point of Ceylonese Economy was the Rice Riots that took place in 1953, when Mr. J.R. Jayewardene was the Finance Minister. Then ruling party, the UNP was shaken up so much by this incident, that subsidies became way of life in the Sri Lankan economy. The bloated public service, which is increasingly becoming a burden to the economy, is also a part of the same system. A long term policy on the public service, particularly on recruitment, has to be formulated after an in depth study of the system. However, we have seen that there has been attempt recently to remove untargeted subsidies like Kerosene / Wheat flour subsidies, which had become “holy” cows. Despite many faults prevailing in the “free” health system Sri Lanka, it is still worth preserving it, perhaps with some reforms. However, to maintain the “free” health system it is helpful to have a “free” education system. Nevertheless, this does not mean that there cannot be increasing private sector participation in tertiary education and in the health sector.
With respect to Subsidies and Social Security, Sri Lanka is in the company of countries like France, where the French Prime Minister Francois Fillon had recently told some farmers in the French island of Corsica that “France is bankrupt” and that “….(it) can no longer afford to pay its workers generous salaries and subsidies ….”.
In the end of the article, Dr. Usvatte-aratchi mentions about the failure of the predictions made by Robert Malthus, David Ricardo, and Karl Marx to come true. However, the crisis in the environment indicates that everything is not well in the present economic system. This because Economics practiced presently can be labeled as almost exclusively Newtonian. However, there are at least three more Paradigms in Physics, which are
1) Quantum Mechanical Paradigm
2) Thermodynamic Paradigm,
under which Entropical Capital comes to play.
3) Einsteinian Paradigm.
Out of which, Thermodynamic Paradigm plays an increasingly important role in Economics. Failure to incorporate this Paradigm into main stream Economics has resulted in major environmental crisis, prominent being the Global warming scenario. This fact is further highlighted by the near ineffectiveness of Kyoto Protocol, which is based on economic orthodoxy, in dealing with global warming.
In my work, I have introduced the concept of Entropic Capital, which is related to more familiar Natural Capital, in order to incorporate the Thermodynamic Paradigm into economic thinking. However, it has to be mentioned that Natural Capital is smaller than Entropic Capital. That is, Natural Capital is a subset of Entropic Capital. Limitations in the availability of Entropic Capital for human consumption, implies that present economic models have become almost irrelevant in its present form, especially with respect to sustainability, in spite of Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth”.
Thus, in order to have a more sustainable economy, a system of “energy entitlement trading” is proposed by me. This proposed system is similar to the existing “carbon trading” system and will make the Economies more energy efficient.
_______________
**An article which appeared in the Island Newspaper on 24/10/07 **
Is it Economics sans Environment or Environment sans Economics?
Any (economic) activity is likely to involve the consumption of resources. Economics, among other matters, is to keep the consumption levels within the regenerative (and carrying) capacity of the earth. Present “development” model entails the consumption of increasing amount of entropic capital. However, according to the “sustainability” model, one can get away with the consumption of a lesser amount of entropic capital. Hence, there is no possibility of “development” sans “sustainability”.
It is true that Universe will not last for ever. Universe is also subjected to condition of Uppada (becoming), Thiti (existence), and Banga (death). It is possible that Universe will be without humans. In that case, Economics pertaining to humans will be irrelevant. However, one can be guided by the traditional Sinhalese saying “ira handa pawathinakan”. That is, “…..until the sun and the moon last”.
Sustainability does not mean that one has to use only technologies which existed three hundred years ago. It does not mean that one has to make a large compromise on the well-being of a person. However, it will definitely make appreciable compromise on the so call “standard of living”. Besides, present so called “standard of living” tends to be associated with diseases like Obesity, Diabetes, Hypertension, Coronary Thrombosis and even possibly Cancer. Thus, it is matter whether the so call “standard of living” is worth the price we pay for it.
Until recently, agriculture was controlled by high-energy (consuming) countries using cheap “oil” and massive subsidies. Presently, there is an (unsuccessful/ partially successful?) attempt by the high energy countries to produce “oil” from agriculture because of the high oil prices. It appears that agriculture has been liberated from the grip of the high-energy countries. Of course, one has to pay a heavy price for his freedom. One could say that the system has gone a full circle. What is witnessed now is a major structural change taking place in the economy, where one is forced into a more sustainable mode of consumption.
It is true that coal can contribute more to pollute, if proper technological measures are not taken. How it is not so much of matter of “oil” vs. “coal” as both contribute to increase in the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere. In the case of oil, known supplies will last about another fifty years if the present consumption patterns are followed.
However, within the “Sustainability” model;
1) Oil consumption by the high-energy countries would be curtailed; this will help to preserve the oil reserves for a longer period. It will also reduce the rate of emission of carbon dioxide by these countries. In addition, it will force the adoption of environmental friendly technology. An even more important consideration is that the overall consumption of resources would be curtailed in the high-energy countries.
2) Some resources will be transferred to very low-energy countries (consuming) which will be helpful in providing with the basic necessities of the relevant communities.
This scheme will be strongly opposed by the so called “developed” countries as it would favor the low-energy countries. However, it is difficult to understand how a person in a low-energy country can be against such a proposal.
Incidentally, President Gorge W. Bush, who favors the present development model, says “we will consume and pollute” and “you pay for it”. This is because it is the low-energy countries which will pay a disproportionate amount for environmental degradation, especially for global warming, and not the high-energy countries.
Life styles of affluent countries are increasingly labeled as non-sustainable. For example, the per capita carbon dioxide emission for USA is 19.8 metric tons per annum (in 2003) while it is only 0.5 for Sri Lanka. The per capita electricity consumption for USA is kiloWatt-hours per annum (in 2003) while it is only for a Sri Lanka. Furthermore, the Ecological Foot Print of an American is 9.57 hectares (in 2004) whereas it is only 0.88 for a Sri Lankan. The Ecological Foot Print is one of the indicators created to give a measure of the compounding environment problems in the world, although is not a perfect one, is increasingly accepted in Economics. About 60% of the world population lives in Asia, whereas the population in the high-energy countries is only about 20%. If the Asians are to follow the economic consumption patterns of the high-energy countries it would be catastrophic. Instead, Asia should adapt an alternative economic consumption model and claim leadership in this regard. Others would be compelled to follow. This is not an option but a necessity.
Incidentally, consider the Nobel (memorial) prize in Economics which is the pinnacle of orthodox economics, has been awarded for work such as on Psychology (Daniel Kahneman - 2002) and Game Theory (Robert J. Aumann - 2005). However, not a single award has been given for work directly related to environmental issues. Is this a case of Economics sans Environment? As far as economic orthodoxy is concerned, one is tempted to say that
“Nero is playing the fiddle while Rome is warming (burning).”
Finally, it has to be mentioned that no technological advances, especially those pertaining to macroscopic system, can overcome the barriers impose by (thermodynamic) entropic consideration. This is true whether it is related to economic activities or otherwise. That is, technology can postpone the inevitable but it cannot override it.
_______________
7th April 2009
Some heretical thoughts on Sustainability
While the main-stream Economists in world focus on the so called "economic crisis" arising from a supposed "sub-primed crisis" originating from USA, the real crisis in the world is that of an increasing Ecological degradation. In this respect, so called Depression in 1927 is different from the present crisis mainly due to the fact that population and individual consumption levels have increased enormously between 1927 and 2008. For example, Ecological Foot Print (EFP) model, clearly states that present EFP exceeds the world's Bio-capacity at least by 25%. However, the present EFP does not account for all human activities in the world and hence, clearly is underestimating enormity of the problem. Also, as EFP is not primarily geared towards sustainability, there is an element of non-sustainability introduced in estimating the Bio-capacity of the world.
While "Keynesians" and Monetarists argue about form of economic stimulus which is more appropriate to overcome the so called "downturn in the Economy", from an ecological point of view, this argument is almost irrelevant as life-styles of the high-energy consuming (that is the so called developed) countries are already non-sustainable. For example, EFP of USA is 9.42 global hectares (gha) while that of Sri Lanka is 1.02 gha.
Although the individual EFP is low in Sri Lanka as compared to that of USA, however, the overall Bio-capacity is less than the total EFP of Sri Lanka due its high population density, which can be trace partly to the tea industry in country especially that of the hill-country where the British have substituted it for a low-population and highly sustainable Ecological system.
Present precipitous drop in tea price also show the non-sustainable nature of tea industry as it is highly coupled to the income generated in the Petroleum industry. In comparison, the rubber prices have dropped due to drop in the demand in synthetic rubber which is made from Petroleum. Hence, the price of tea has reduced because of the lack of demand from the oil-producing countries for tea, whereas rubber prices drop largely due to reduction in the price (and the demand) of synthetic rubber, which determines the price of rubber. However, it is possible that the peak in the production of oil may be reached in the next decade and once Petroleum runs out, natural rubber prices would increase due to myriad uses of rubber unlike that of tea.
The Question arises why the present Economic Thinking is constantly unable to handle environmental problems in the world?
Presently, orthodox economic theories are mainly based on a "Newtonian Worldview", where the origins of it can be traced to Leon Walras et al, who had directly substituted the concept of Utility and Expenditure for Potential Energy and Kinetic Energy encountered in Newtonian physics. This basic premise is untenable and has been dealt many others and can be referred to in a short exposition by Prof. Robert Nadeau in Scientific American (April 2008) under title "Economist has no Clothes". In addition, many of Prof. Nadaeu's work are available on the "Encyclopedia of Earth" website, which also host the work of Prof. Mohan Munasinghe. In Brief, one could identify among other issues, the growing use of non-renewable resources and increasing degradation of environment as failures of orthodox Economics. At this juncture, it is worth mentioning that Adams Smith's "Wealth of the Nation" speaks of a hidden hand, and why one should get a hidden hand in Economics and not in Astrology. Adam Smith's "wealth of the Nation" has to be read with his other major work "Moral Sentiment", and there is an element of religious underpinning in his work "wealth of the Nation". In fact, most Newtonian Economists have predisposition towards Determinism and Adam Smith's work like many others are works in Cultural Relativism.
However, the dominant Paradigm in Economics should be Thermodynamic Paradigm and not the "Newtonian Worldview" and these views have been discussed in detail by persons of the calibre Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, Herman Daly etc. The basic premise in the Thermodynamic Paradigm is that we move from low entropic State to a high entropic State as we consume, and that energy moves from being available to being non-available. Incidentally, low-entropic states are associated with Order and high-entropic states are associated with Disorder. For example, Uranium is a low entropy state, when nuclear energy is used up remnants end up in a high entropy state. That is, stored up entropic Capital is used up when generating Nuclear energy. However, there is one exception to this process of increasing entropy as far as solar energy is concerned, earth's entropy decreases due to the nature of radiation received and emitted from the earth's surface. Thus, due to solar energy, Order is created on earth. This fact is intuitive, as life on earth which is a form of Order, would be impossible to imagine without solar energy.
However, what is proposed is not a Paradigm shift in Economics, as often prescribed in Occidental thinking in line with Aristotelian Logic, which is to "Exclude the Middle". Rather keeping with eastern traditions, it is proposed that the dominant Paradigm in Economics as the Thermodynamic Paradigm with other Paradigms playing a lesser role. This would change the entire outlook in Economics.
In addition, concept of Bio-diversity/ Bio-capacity has to be incorporated if any economic thinking is to be meaningful.
For example, according to Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW) developed in UK, UK economy peaks up in mid nineteen seventies. This means the increase in Per Capita income in UK is offset by degradation in ecological and social fabric. Thus, Per Capita income is not a satisfactory metric in Economics, especially at the higher levels. However, it has to be emphasized that ISEW is still based on "Newtonian worldview" and in the true sense is not in line with the Thermodynamic Paradigm.
If the world is over-consuming Entropic Capital what must be done? Despite what is advocated by Newtonists, Localization of the Economy as mush as possible is the answer. With the running out of Petroleum resources, the world would likely to move towards Biological/ Natural Systems despite the possible use of increasing amount of Nuclear Energy. In this case, Agricultural reforms are essential. As pointed by Prof. Perfecto of University of Michigan, world could be fed on Organic Agriculture. Besides, present agriculture is un-sustainable as explained by D. Pfeiffer in the book "Eating Oil (Fossil Fuel)". Incidentally, the agricultural Subsidies given by the High-energy consuming countries are biggest impediment to localization of Agriculture and the Economy. Why the high-energy countries in the world give subsidies is not for Food Security but for ensuring Entropic Capital Security of their Economies. In other words, what the high-energy countries are doing is to knock out Agriculture in the low-energy countries in order to ensure that their Economies would be supplied with Entropic Capital from the low-energy countries. Thus, agricultural Subsidies given in high-energy countries are not a Trade issue but a so called "Human Rights" issue. With the increase in the price of Fuel in the world, increase in agricultural production was observed in countries like Sri Lanka as subsidies given in high-energy countries had become less effective, although rapid increase in food prices during period would be burden on marginalized in the low-energy countries in the world. However, these famine-like conditions that exist in certain countries may due to what Prof. Amertya Sen would label as being democratically-deficient and not necessarily owing to environmental/ economical reasons. Incidentally, subsidizing of petroleum fertilizer in Sri Lanka is not only un-sustainable and is often polluting the land due to excessive use but may be even creating death zones in the sea owing to run-offs.
Speaking of so called Human Rights, while it is a relative concept and due to excessive Individual Rights in Occidental countries there is a propensity to commit violence towards Entropic Capital. If one considers emission of Carbon Dioxide, more than 60% of the accumulated carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been emitted by 20% of the world population living in these countries. The Question arises whether excessive emission of carbon dioxide is so called Human Right issue or not? Do countries like Maldives Island have the Right to exit? Who is responsible for the wiping out of countries like Maldives due to rising of sea levels? In this respect, Kyoto Protocol is flawed has it does not accept the concept of Polluter Pays and the baseline of the year 1990 is untenable as it is not based on concept of Sustainability, as Indices like ISEW suggests, although ISEW itself is deficient with respect to sustainability. Again, the inability to handle Piracy on Somali Sea is partially attributed to the concern for so called Human Rights where the approach to the problem by the Indians is different as compared to that of the Occidentals.
Under the thermodynamic paradigm, what is proposed is "Energy Entitlement Trading", to mitigate environmental degradation. In this scheme, each person is allowed a predetermined amount of consumption of energy and if one exceeds this given amount then he has to purchase permit to consume from another person who has not exceeded his limit. This scheme is different form that is encountered in the Kyoto Protocol which advocates "trading in Carbon". In the Kyoto Protocol, Carbon trading is based on treatment of the symptoms of the problem rather than the problem per se. If the world is over-consuming resources then Carbon Trading may mitigate Global Warming, but it would most likely not solve the problem of environmental degradation.
While the main-stream Economists in world focus on the so called "economic crisis" arising from a supposed "sub-primed crisis" originating from USA, the real crisis in the world is that of an increasing Ecological degradation. In this respect, so called Depression in 1927 is different from the present crisis mainly due to the fact that population and individual consumption levels have increased enormously between 1927 and 2008. For example, Ecological Foot Print (EFP) model, clearly states that present EFP exceeds the world's Bio-capacity at least by 25%. However, the present EFP does not account for all human activities in the world and hence, clearly is underestimating enormity of the problem. Also, as EFP is not primarily geared towards sustainability, there is an element of non-sustainability introduced in estimating the Bio-capacity of the world.
While "Keynesians" and Monetarists argue about form of economic stimulus which is more appropriate to overcome the so called "downturn in the Economy", from an ecological point of view, this argument is almost irrelevant as life-styles of the high-energy consuming (that is the so called developed) countries are already non-sustainable. For example, EFP of USA is 9.42 global hectares (gha) while that of Sri Lanka is 1.02 gha.
Although the individual EFP is low in Sri Lanka as compared to that of USA, however, the overall Bio-capacity is less than the total EFP of Sri Lanka due its high population density, which can be trace partly to the tea industry in country especially that of the hill-country where the British have substituted it for a low-population and highly sustainable Ecological system.
Present precipitous drop in tea price also show the non-sustainable nature of tea industry as it is highly coupled to the income generated in the Petroleum industry. In comparison, the rubber prices have dropped due to drop in the demand in synthetic rubber which is made from Petroleum. Hence, the price of tea has reduced because of the lack of demand from the oil-producing countries for tea, whereas rubber prices drop largely due to reduction in the price (and the demand) of synthetic rubber, which determines the price of rubber. However, it is possible that the peak in the production of oil may be reached in the next decade and once Petroleum runs out, natural rubber prices would increase due to myriad uses of rubber unlike that of tea.
The Question arises why the present Economic Thinking is constantly unable to handle environmental problems in the world?
Presently, orthodox economic theories are mainly based on a "Newtonian Worldview", where the origins of it can be traced to Leon Walras et al, who had directly substituted the concept of Utility and Expenditure for Potential Energy and Kinetic Energy encountered in Newtonian physics. This basic premise is untenable and has been dealt many others and can be referred to in a short exposition by Prof. Robert Nadeau in Scientific American (April 2008) under title "Economist has no Clothes". In addition, many of Prof. Nadaeu's work are available on the "Encyclopedia of Earth" website, which also host the work of Prof. Mohan Munasinghe. In Brief, one could identify among other issues, the growing use of non-renewable resources and increasing degradation of environment as failures of orthodox Economics. At this juncture, it is worth mentioning that Adams Smith's "Wealth of the Nation" speaks of a hidden hand, and why one should get a hidden hand in Economics and not in Astrology. Adam Smith's "wealth of the Nation" has to be read with his other major work "Moral Sentiment", and there is an element of religious underpinning in his work "wealth of the Nation". In fact, most Newtonian Economists have predisposition towards Determinism and Adam Smith's work like many others are works in Cultural Relativism.
However, the dominant Paradigm in Economics should be Thermodynamic Paradigm and not the "Newtonian Worldview" and these views have been discussed in detail by persons of the calibre Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, Herman Daly etc. The basic premise in the Thermodynamic Paradigm is that we move from low entropic State to a high entropic State as we consume, and that energy moves from being available to being non-available. Incidentally, low-entropic states are associated with Order and high-entropic states are associated with Disorder. For example, Uranium is a low entropy state, when nuclear energy is used up remnants end up in a high entropy state. That is, stored up entropic Capital is used up when generating Nuclear energy. However, there is one exception to this process of increasing entropy as far as solar energy is concerned, earth's entropy decreases due to the nature of radiation received and emitted from the earth's surface. Thus, due to solar energy, Order is created on earth. This fact is intuitive, as life on earth which is a form of Order, would be impossible to imagine without solar energy.
However, what is proposed is not a Paradigm shift in Economics, as often prescribed in Occidental thinking in line with Aristotelian Logic, which is to "Exclude the Middle". Rather keeping with eastern traditions, it is proposed that the dominant Paradigm in Economics as the Thermodynamic Paradigm with other Paradigms playing a lesser role. This would change the entire outlook in Economics.
In addition, concept of Bio-diversity/ Bio-capacity has to be incorporated if any economic thinking is to be meaningful.
For example, according to Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW) developed in UK, UK economy peaks up in mid nineteen seventies. This means the increase in Per Capita income in UK is offset by degradation in ecological and social fabric. Thus, Per Capita income is not a satisfactory metric in Economics, especially at the higher levels. However, it has to be emphasized that ISEW is still based on "Newtonian worldview" and in the true sense is not in line with the Thermodynamic Paradigm.
If the world is over-consuming Entropic Capital what must be done? Despite what is advocated by Newtonists, Localization of the Economy as mush as possible is the answer. With the running out of Petroleum resources, the world would likely to move towards Biological/ Natural Systems despite the possible use of increasing amount of Nuclear Energy. In this case, Agricultural reforms are essential. As pointed by Prof. Perfecto of University of Michigan, world could be fed on Organic Agriculture. Besides, present agriculture is un-sustainable as explained by D. Pfeiffer in the book "Eating Oil (Fossil Fuel)". Incidentally, the agricultural Subsidies given by the High-energy consuming countries are biggest impediment to localization of Agriculture and the Economy. Why the high-energy countries in the world give subsidies is not for Food Security but for ensuring Entropic Capital Security of their Economies. In other words, what the high-energy countries are doing is to knock out Agriculture in the low-energy countries in order to ensure that their Economies would be supplied with Entropic Capital from the low-energy countries. Thus, agricultural Subsidies given in high-energy countries are not a Trade issue but a so called "Human Rights" issue. With the increase in the price of Fuel in the world, increase in agricultural production was observed in countries like Sri Lanka as subsidies given in high-energy countries had become less effective, although rapid increase in food prices during period would be burden on marginalized in the low-energy countries in the world. However, these famine-like conditions that exist in certain countries may due to what Prof. Amertya Sen would label as being democratically-deficient and not necessarily owing to environmental/ economical reasons. Incidentally, subsidizing of petroleum fertilizer in Sri Lanka is not only un-sustainable and is often polluting the land due to excessive use but may be even creating death zones in the sea owing to run-offs.
Speaking of so called Human Rights, while it is a relative concept and due to excessive Individual Rights in Occidental countries there is a propensity to commit violence towards Entropic Capital. If one considers emission of Carbon Dioxide, more than 60% of the accumulated carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been emitted by 20% of the world population living in these countries. The Question arises whether excessive emission of carbon dioxide is so called Human Right issue or not? Do countries like Maldives Island have the Right to exit? Who is responsible for the wiping out of countries like Maldives due to rising of sea levels? In this respect, Kyoto Protocol is flawed has it does not accept the concept of Polluter Pays and the baseline of the year 1990 is untenable as it is not based on concept of Sustainability, as Indices like ISEW suggests, although ISEW itself is deficient with respect to sustainability. Again, the inability to handle Piracy on Somali Sea is partially attributed to the concern for so called Human Rights where the approach to the problem by the Indians is different as compared to that of the Occidentals.
Under the thermodynamic paradigm, what is proposed is "Energy Entitlement Trading", to mitigate environmental degradation. In this scheme, each person is allowed a predetermined amount of consumption of energy and if one exceeds this given amount then he has to purchase permit to consume from another person who has not exceeded his limit. This scheme is different form that is encountered in the Kyoto Protocol which advocates "trading in Carbon". In the Kyoto Protocol, Carbon trading is based on treatment of the symptoms of the problem rather than the problem per se. If the world is over-consuming resources then Carbon Trading may mitigate Global Warming, but it would most likely not solve the problem of environmental degradation.
******************
.
Some Definitions:
Development (as seen by the author) – The accumulation of entropic capital in the hands of a single individual or a group of individuals for the purpose of enjoying its benefit in the present or in the future, thus, practically denying the access to the same entropic capital to the rest of the organisms in the world. This is the dominant mode of (economic) development as emphasized in occidental thinking, where the development of manasa (mind) is often neglected.
Entropy (as elucidated by D.F. Styer) - “Given the clear need for an intuition concerning entropy, and the appealing but unsatisfactory character of the simile “entropy as disorder” what is to be done? I suggest an additional simile, namely “entropy as freedom,” which is to be used by not itself but only in conjunction with “entropy as disorder.” (Emphasis mine)
Entropic capital – The accumulated order found in nature which provides with the freedom to act (for any entity). Incidentally, entropic capital is the foremost of the factors of production encountered in economics, as without it other factors would be irrelevant. While all Natural Capital is Entropic Capital, all Natural Capital is not Entropic Capital.
******************
7th October 2009
Entropic Footprint and Sustainability
It is clear that the orthodox economic discourses are almost ineffective in handling the present environmental/economic crisis. This is most noticeable in the case of Global Warming despite the Kyoto Protocol. It is basically due to the fact that the present Economics is originally built on the premise "sum of utility and expenditure replaced Potential and Kinetic Energy", which is essentially based on a Newtonian worldview. However, the dominant Paradigm in Economics is the "Thermodynamic Paradigm" with other considerations incorporated in a holistic manner, keeping in mind that living orgasms including Humans, who are essentially non-equilibrium processes, produce waste. Thus, it is most appropriate to categorize Economics under Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics (NET). The concept of waste production has been increasingly important in determining Economic Thinking, initially with Carbon Footprint and later on with the concept of Ecological Footprint, which is inclusive of the Carbon Footprint. However, the Ecological Footprint is not necessarily a measure in sustainability as it deals with the current technology used which itself is accelerating the process of the reduction of gradients present in nature. These gradients may be Thermal, Pressure, Concentration of species or matter etc., which are essential for maintaining life.
The most important characterization of these gradients is the concept of Entropy(S) which is at the heart of Thermodynamics. While Entropy is somewhat abstract, it is also difficult to quantify due to the relationship,
dS is equal to or greater than dq/T ,
where dS is the differential element of Entropy, dq is the differential element associated with the heat (q) generated in the process and T is the temperature. The equal sign in the above equation applies to equilibrium processes. However, Entropy has been quantified in limited cases.
Nevertheless, the Entropy is best described by D. F. Styer,
“Given the clear need for an intuition concerning entropy, and the appealing but unsatisfactory character of the simile “entropy as disorder” what is to be done? I suggest an additional simile, namely “entropy as freedom,” which is to be used by not itself but only in conjunction with “entropy as disorder."
Furthermore, associated with the concept of Entropy it is possible define a Footprint, which can be associated with a particular individual or a specific activity. It has to be mentioned that tools such as Ecological Rucksacks, Life Cycle Analysis naturally gravitate towards the concept of Entropic Footprint without explicitly mentioning it.
Nevertheless, it is most appropriate to describe some properties of Entropy,
a) All Organisms produce entropic waste (Footprints) by their actions, such as Human Beings consume fresh water and produce Urine which is of a higher entropic state as compared to fresh water. In addition, burning of fossil fuel is another process, which produces Carbon Dioxide and heat energy, where there is an increase in the Entropy.
b) If a system is truly in thermal equilibrium, then it does not produce thermal waste and it is literally dead.
c) As far as the Sun is concerned, it causes a net reduction of the Entropy on the Earth by the combined process of the reception on earth the radiation of relatively higher frequencies from the sun and the emission of radiation of relatively lower frequencies from the earth. This is in contrast to other activities on earth which are accompanied by either an increase in the Entropy or in some instances the Entropy remaining the same.
d) Since, Entropic Capital is limited, that is there is Bio-physical limit to consumption, and most sustainable processes are those which have lower Entropic Footprints. However, if the Entropic Footprints are excessively low, then life (on earth) will be most inhospitable and most likely to be untenable.
This results in the natural conclusion that economic growth without limits, as presently envisaged by economic orthodoxy, is an unviable proposition. This is despite the fact that so called technological advances supposed have contributed to economic growth. Besides, economic growth without limits suggests a linear-like model, which is inconsistent with the concept "Energy flows but matter circulates". Thus, Steady State Economy with least amount of restrictions such as limiting the amount of consumption of Energy per capita at this juncture by means of "Energy Entitlement Trading system" rather than the "Carbon Trading" is most appropriate. This is basically a "gradient preserving" process which would inevitably lead to a greater localization of the Economy. However, the concept of having least amount of restrictions is a partial alignment with the purported free market Economics. Presently, Carbon trading, and hence in a more broader sense a possible Trading in Ecological Footprints are manifestation of a symptom of the problem, whereas Trading in Energy Entitlements is more fundamental in nature and directly related to Entropic Capital (Footprints).
Life is essentially a "gradient degrading" process which is an unavoidable property of metabolism, and destroys the very gradients which it feeds on, inevitably producing Disorder in the environment. Hence, the strategy is to strike a balance between these "gradient degrading" processes which are inevitably associated with life and the "preservation of gradients" found in nature, in view of maintaining Order in the environment for the very sustenance of life.
1) The Economist has no clothes, R Nadeau, Scientific American, April 2008.
2) Current Method for Calculating National Ecological Footprint Accounts, J Kitzes, A Peller, S Goldfinger and M Wackernagel, Science for Environment & Sustainable Society Vol 4 No1 (2007).
3) In to the Cool: Energy Flow, Thermodynamics, and Life, E.D. Schneider and D. Sagan, Prentice-Hall of India (2005).
4) Entropy, Environment and Resources – an Essay in Physico-Economics, M. Faber, H. Niemes, and G. Stephan with the cooperation of L. Freytag, translated from the German by I. Pellengahr, Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1987).
5) Entropy and the Second Law: A Pedagogical Alternative, R. Baierlein, American Journal of Physics, 62(1), January 1994.
6) Georgescu-Roegen’s Defense of Classical Thermodynamics Revisited, Gabriel A. Lozada, Ecological Economics 14, 31-44 (1995).
7) A Buddhist's View on Sustainability/ A Heretic's Thoughts on the Economy, A.T. Wijeratne, Sri Lanka (2006).
8) Insight into Entropy, D. F. Styer, American Journal of Physics, 68(12), December (2000).
9) The Ecological Rucksack: Economy for a Future with Future, F Schmidt- Bleek, M.L. Meier, and C Nettershem, Hirzel, Stuttgart (2004).
10) Handbook of Life Cycle Assessment: Operational Guide to the ISO Standards Edited by J Guinee, Kluwer Academic Publishers (2002).
11) Entropic Capital – The accumulated order found in nature which provides with the freedom to act (for any entity). Incidentally, entropic capital is the foremost of the factors of production encountered in economics, as without it other factors would be irrelevant.
__________________
Agra T Wijeratne
Department of Physics
University of Sri Jayewardenepura
