Daniels P., (2010) Economics Buddhism - Part 2 New views and practices for sustinable world...

8/10/2019 Daniels P., (2010) Economics Buddhism - Part 2 New views and practices for sustinable world economies.pdf

1/11

Climate change, economics and Buddhism Part 2: New views and practices for

sustainable world economies

Peter L. Daniels

Grifth School of Environment, Grifth University, Brisbane, 4111, Australia

a b s t r a c ta r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 28 October 2009

Received in revised form 27 January 2010Accepted 31 January 2010

Available online 2 March 2010

Keywords:

Climate change

Economics

Ethics

Environmental analysis

Buddhism

Sustainability strategies

The evidence of impending and serious climate and other consequences of an expanding world economy

based on fossil carbon energy continues to accumulate. This two-part paper examines the potential

contribution of the world view and insights of Buddhism to this search. It presents both a conceptual and

practical case that Buddhism can help shape and move towards an alternative and effective paradigmatic

basis for sustainable economies one capable of bringing about and maintaining genuine, high welfare

levels across the world's societies.

The rst paper outlined a comprehensive analytical framework to identify the fundamental nature of

anthropogenic climate change. Based on the integration of two of the most inuential environmental

analysis tools of recent decades (the DPSIR model and IPAT equation), the framework was then broadened to

facilitate ideas from the Buddhist world view by injecting two key missing aspects the interrelated role of

(1) beliefs and values (on goals and behavior) and (2) the nature of well-being or human happiness. Finally,

the principal linkages between this climate change analysis framework and Buddhism were explored.

In this concluding paper, the systems framework is used to demonstrate how Buddhist and related world

views can feed into appropriate and effective responses to the impending challenges of climate change. This

is undertaken by systematically presenting a specic, if indicative, list of relevant strategies informed by the

understanding of interconnectedness and other basic principles about the nature of reality and human well-

being as proposed in Buddhism.

2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The level of human perturbation in the life-supporting planetary

carbon cycle is now a cause of great concern (Perez and Batten, 2006).

Beyond the threat of climate change catastrophe, global fossil carbon

energy dependence brings an extensive range of political, environ-

mental and social problems linked to the rather vulnerable sociocul-

tural, technical and infrastructural systems that develop around such

a lucrative (at least in the short-term) form of energy for society.

Many of these troubling issues are intensifying with probable global

oil peak and relentless growth in use and dependence on petroleum,

natural gas and coal (Bardi, 2009).

This two-part paper is premised on the proposition that current

fossil carbon energy use is intrinsically high-intervention in nature

and will, even via the biophysical mechanisms alone, have very

signicant and disruptive outcomes on the interconnected well-being

of individuals, society and nature. It is proposed that this level and

form of intervention has become an inherent, powerful, and self-

reproducing driving force within global consumer society despite

substantial human intentions for change towards more sustainable

ways of life. Hence, rather piecemeal and incremental policy moves

such as the property rights extension approach of emission trading

schemes are deemed as well-meaning but unlikely to be adequate for

the fundamental sociocultural, economic and technological changes

required to effectively deal with climate change and other sustain-

ability challenges. This limitation applies to bothmitigationof sources

of climate change, as well as adaptation to the unavoidable impacts

from carbon cycle perturbation to date.

Given a need for more profound change that is inevitably rooted in

fresh world views, values and knowledge about the way to sustained

improvements in well-being, this paper examines environmental,

ethical and cosmological dimensions of Buddhism as a logical and

practical basis for addressing climate change and other problems

associated with humanity's growing dependence on fossil carbon.

Arguably, the ideas are appropriate for evaluating all societal means

and ends that have signicant linkages to nature.

The rst paper involved a structured etiological analysis of

relevant climate change drivers, pressures, and responses, and their

connection to world views about the essential nature of universal

interdependence and causeeffect relations. A key aspect was the role

of beliefs, values, goals, and choices, and subsequent implications for

Ecological Economics 69 (2010) 962972

An updated paper based on a presentationto theUnited Nations Day of Vesak 2008

Buddhist Response to Climate ChangeWorkshop, Hanoi, Vietnam May 15, 2008.

Tel.: +61 7 3735 7189; fax: +61 7 3735 7459.

E-mail address:[email protected].

0921-8009/$ see front matter 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.01.012

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Economics

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / e c o l e c o n
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.01.012http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09218009http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09218009http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.01.012mailto:[email protected]


2/11

well-being. This Buddhism-inspired exploration of substantive causes

opened the way for the range of effective solutions proposed in this

concluding paper. The previous paper began with the development of

a comprehensive analytical framework to identify the key relation-

ships underlying the issue of anthropogenic climate change. Two

inuential environmental analysis tools were integrated the DPSIR

model and (extended) IPAT equation. This outcome was then ex-

panded to accommodate two key missing aspects for injecting

potential insight from Buddhism. These aspects are the interrelatedroles of (1) beliefs and values (on goals and behavior) and (2) the

nature of well-being or human happiness. The nal section of part 1

outlined the primary Buddhist views about the main linkages in our

integrated heuristic framework for analyzing climate change.

In this second paper, we build on this initial work and extract and

construct the underlying policy themes and specic climate change

responses that are consistent with the philosophy of Buddhism. The

paper opens with a brief overview of the key features of the integrated

framework for environmental problem analysis developed in the rst

paper. Using this platform as a base, we identify and discuss the

general guiding ideas and principles that would structure Buddhism-

inspired changes to address climate change and other inherent

problems in economic systems predicated upon fossil carbon energy

and its extensive intervention with and disruption to nature. The nal

section presents some discussion on a specic list of nine compatible

strategic changes broadly classied into chain impact and well-being

research, policies for directly modifying economic behavior and

choices, and mechanisms for shaping inner values and aspirations.

2. A review of the integrated environmental systems analysis

framework including key elements of the Buddhist world view

The extended scope of the integrated environmental analysis

framework developed in the rst paper reects Buddhism's emphasis

upon ethical dimensions of human action and outcomes and the real

inuences upon well-being. However, our framework also serves

as an appropriate platform for integrating Buddhism in terms of

(a) explaining the fundamental nature of the driving forces behind

climate change and, hence, (b) conguring appropriate and effectiveresponses to the problem. The latter, more practical and policy-

oriented issue comprises the essence and focus of this second paper.

The heuristic framework builds upon the European Environmental

Agency's popular DPSIR approach (Gabrielsen and Bosch, 2003).

This systems analysis method starts with social and economic

developments (driving forces(D)) that generate material and energy

ows that exert pressureon the environment (P) and, consequently,

lead to changes in its state (S). In turn, state changes will impact

human welfare (I) (e.g. via health, amenity and productivity effects)

andwill often elicita response from society (R) aimed at modifyingthe

driving forces and taking other mitigating, adaptive or remedial

action. The greenhouse gas emissions from transport, agricultural and

other petrochemical applications and activities leading to climate

change are a classic case in point.Our rst innovation to this basic schema addresses the limited

treatment of critical driving forces in the DPSIR model. The model is

combined with an extended version of the popular and inuential

MasterIPAT equation to inject a consistent and systematic detailed

analysis of the essential driving forces (D) behind climate change.1

The driving forces in the right-hand side of theI = P.A.Tequation are

population (P), afuence or output or consumption per person (GDP

per capita in $s) (A); and the environmental impact per unit of output

(per person) (T). However, afuence (A) and technology or average

environmental impact of overall output (T) do not provide adequate

information for understanding the complete nature of environmental

pressure sources and hence the means by which these pressures

might be reduced. We need to extend the PAT aspect of the equation

to help reveal perhaps the most important and useful information for

scientic understanding and strategic responses to specic environ-

mental problems. Indeed, it is critical to know and measure (1) the

nature and composition of consumption or production within the

overall output bundle (af

uence), in conjunction with (2) theenvironmental impact associated with the production and consump-

tion per unit (oftenper $) of each specic type of economic activity, or

good or service.

Naturally, the current technologies associated with productionand

consumption are instrumental for the latter aspect. This is the key to

the detailed analysis of sources and derivation of potential solutions.

Hence, the driving forces need to be studied not just in terms of

population and overall levels of output but must also focus upon both

the nature of output (or composition of consumption) and the

environmental-intensity of each output type. The arithmetic product

of (1) the level of specic activity, and (2) its environment-intensity,

will determine the extent to which it puts pressure on the source and

sink functions provided to humans from nature.

The result is the extended, IPANT equation and the four sets of

driving forces are shown integrated into the framework at the top of

Fig. 1. The economic activity type(N)technology (T) relation governs

the driving force (D) environmental pressure (P) linkage in theDPSIR

model via emission, natural resource input and land use factors or

intensities. The benets of this more complete decomposition and

analysis of consumption (and, by corollary, production and trade) are

now widely-recognized and match the strong growth in research

interest in sustainable consumption, lifestyle and preference changes

(Reisch and Rpke, 2004; Tukker, 2008).

The additional innovations and extensions to the basic DPSIR

framework are driven by its relative neglect of the deeper sociocul-

tural factors that exist at the root environmental theme problems. It is

no coincidence that the inclusion of these key variables also provides

the appropriate interface for embedding the Buddhist world views

into our integrated environmental systems analysis. Therst stepis toincorporate therole of values, beliefs andethical dimensions. It is their

inuence around the driving forces behind behavioral, social and

economic outcomes (such as population, levels and nature of output

and technology) that ultimately generate the environmental pres-

sures behind climate change. However, this is not enough. We also

need to identify how the integrated model connects to actual policy

objectives. These objectives are typically focused, at least implicitly,

upon net substantive and sustained gains in well-being.

The idea that our belief system and world views congure our

values, goals, choices and behavior that are manifest as the social and

economic outcomes or driving forces has been incorporated into the

integrated model as the inner right-hand box ofFig. 1. This value-

behavior relation is shown to connect to the DPSIR-IPANT model as

(1) a key source of the driving forcesand, (2) providing the essentialunderstanding for effective change in behavior and responses to

address climate change. The other main link to the Buddhist

perspective is created by dropping the critical welfare or well-being

component into the model (inner left-hand box ofFig. 1). Here, well-

being is depicted as being inuenced by (1) the traditional, if

ambivalent, link to afuence (GDP per capita), as well as (2) how

much and what is produced and consumed (and indirectly, technol-

ogy or how it is produced), (3) the environmental quality impacts of

previous economic activity and,nally, (4) the nature of expectations,

wants and goals. These main inuences are shown by the four arrows

leading to welfare inFig. 1.

Therefore, the overall analytic framework inFig. 1, developed as

the basis for introducing Buddhist insights into creating effective

climate change strategies in the rst part of this paper, contains three

1 The Master IPAT equation is I =P.A.T where I is the total environmental impact

(biophysical) and is equal to the product of population (P); afuence or output or

consumption per person (GDP per capita in $s) (A); and the environmental impact per

unit of output (per person) (T) (Graedel and Allenby, 1995).

963P.L. Daniels / Ecological Economics 69 (2010) 962972
http://-/?-http://-/?-


3/11

main interconnected elements: (1) the integrated DPSIR and

extended IPAT framework, (2) a simple model of behavior as the

result of goals and choices derived from prevailing beliefs and ethical

systems, and (3) the interconnected central objective or end-point of

human welfare or well-being.

The previous paper of this article outlines the primary Buddhist

views on the causeeffect relations that pivot upon the two

sociocultural additions to the DPSIR framework. They cover how

beliefs, values, goals, choices and behavior guide the driving forcesbehindthe climate change threat, as well as howwell-being is actually

inuenced by economic and environmental outcomes, and expecta-

tions and goals. As discussed in the earlier paper, the most relevant

and direct aspects of Buddhism are probably the rst two of the Four

Noble Truths together with the strong theme of existential intercon-

nectedness.2 They present the main causeeffect relations that

explain the major sources of welfare loss including climate change

impacts as a form of societal suffering from ignorance and mis-

directed action.

The Buddhist insights regarding the values-behavior outcome and

the path to well-being can be briey summarized as follows. The

conventional Western consumer economy view of well-being, and

hence our primary life activity goals, is incorrect. Beyond basic

biophysical and social-community needs, material accumulation andattachment is actually a source of suffering (or, perhaps, disutility in

neoclassical economic speak). This is very different from the positive

relationship between economic output and welfare adopted as an

axiom in mainstream economic thought. The rst two Noble Truths

describe how worldly phenomena are intrinsically transient and

eventually change into a different form or state, or are subject to

saturation or adaptation, so they no longer comprise the source of

benet originally expected from them. Thus, attachment to desire and

the hope that well-being will continue to be drawn from outside

sources is the primary source of discontent.

When these truths are coupled with central notion of the

profound and substantive interconnectedness of all things, the

essential Buddhist explanation of the sources of climate changedrivers is further revealed. If attachment and the pursuit of desire are

associated with high levels of biophysical intervention and disruption,

consequent suffering (or dukkha) is intensied. Source impacts will

extend out from individuals, across society and nature (the three

realms), and back, to have commensurate longer-term welfare

effects upon the originator.

Hence well-being requires basic material needs but, beyond this

level, it has very contingent links to afuence or overall levels of

output and consumption (measured in monetary or biophysical

terms). Other important inuences on well-being derived from

Buddhism are represented by dashed lines in the integrated model

(Fig. 1). They include the nature of consumption (including time use)

and the intensity of specic disruptive impacts that ow through

society, nature and back to the individual source. One furtherinuence on well-being would be the disappointment from the

failure of the goal of greater consumption and its desired satisfaction

effect.

From this explanation of the problem sources, it is possible to

identify the nature of appropriate changes and strategies to induce

such changes.

3. General Buddhist principles for effective responses to

climate change

The discussion of Buddhism in the rst paper of this series was

restricted to its view about the current underlying causalprocesses

at work. In particular, we looked at how the Buddhist world view

explains the driving forces behind climate change as an outcome of

2 In brief, the Four Noble Truths are (1) that existence is pervaded by impermanence

and associated suffering or profound dissatisfaction, (2) that the cause of this

suffering is attachment to desire, (3) there is a way to end suffering and achieve

peace cease attachment to desire, and (4) that the way to end suffering is to follow

the Eightfold Path. Buddhism's unique view ofAnattaor soulnessnesswhere there is

no xed self-identity through life and death reinforces its emphasis on interconnect-

edness and compassion (Narada, 1966). Individual welfareis intrinsically tied to that

of other sentient beings. Rather than self-seeking goals of future well-being from one's

appropriate acts in present life, true welfare (Nirvana) will occur by release from

divided, individual existence.

Fig. 1.The DPSIR-IPANT integrated framework for understanding the causes and potential solutions for climate change.

964 P.L. Daniels / Ecological Economics 69 (2010) 962972
http://-/?-http://-/?-


4/11

underlying beliefs, values, wants and goals. The other key focus for

this task was upon the perception of well-being and how it is actually

affected by economic output levels and type, technology, and

environmental conditions and impacts. Understanding causes and

the means and ends for true well-being gains is, of course, an essential

aspect for identifying solutions. In this paper, theemphasisshifts to an

exposition of how a Buddhist world view and principles would inform

effective climate changeresponsesthat are consistent with its notion

of positive social and economic outcomes. Theoretically, a society that

embraced Buddhism as a guiding basis for the nature of its social and

economic conditions would greatly reduce the drivers that currently

underlie predicted climate change.

Fig. 2shows that portion of the overall DPSIR-IPANT hybrid model

focused upon human responses to climate change(R). In thebasicDPSIR

framework, responses are considered as a reaction to socioeconomic

impacts (in this case, from climate change). They can be targeted either

at underlying driving forces or comprise more reactive, remedial and ex

postefforts to mitigate existing environmental pressures (P) and state(S) changes, or alleviate related adverse societal impacts (I). Note that

the latter approach is passive and remedial and is not shown in Fig. 2.3

Indeed, it is considered of secondary importance in this analysis given

the explicit emphasis upon fundamental causeeffect relations in

Buddhism (Bhikkhu Bodhi, 1987; Yamamoto, 1998, 2003). Given this

orientation, and the fact that driving forces and responses are forms of

human behavior, the primary task is to explain the goals and logic

behind human choices and activity. In the integrated model of the rst

paper, we have used the sociocultural extensions to show how

Buddhism provides a clear analysis of the misdirected sources of driving

forcesbehind behavior.With this knowledgeof theunderlying nature of

beliefs, goals, wants and choices, appropriate strategies can be designed

and implemented. The two arrows leading to ResponsesinFig. 2are

intended to emphasizethat insights fromBuddhismhelp explain (1)thefundamental (beliefgoalbehavior) sources of climate change driving

forces and, hence, (2) identify what responses could change underlying

belief, goals and behavior.

To effectively and efciently make changes that reduce the sources

of climate change, it is rst necessary to have a comprehensive under-

standing of therelative contribution of different drivingforces (D)to the

biophysical conditions (P and S) and impacts (I) we associate with

climate change. Climate change pressures, states and impacts can be

analyzed back to their underlyinghumanactivities vianatural andsocial

science assessment of the links between D P S I (see Fig. 3). This

involves the extensiveinvestigation of the full chain effects (life cycleand

system-wide) of specic types of consumption, production, technolo-

gies and other worldly choices.4

From the initial discussion of how Buddhism helps in the envi-

ronmental systems analysis of climate change, there are two

immediate inferences that can be used to guide responses. Firstly,

the Buddhist world view reveals that prevailing driving forces based

on maximizing consumption or want-satisfaction will ultimately fail

to relieve suffering from clinging to desire (tanha)(Mendis, 1993). In

fact, the mindset and intent underlying such an (unachievable) goal is

likely to increase dissatisfaction and disappointment (and hence,

lower perceived quality of life) (Zadek, 1993). A second inference

from the Buddhist viewpoint is that these negative outcomes are

likely to be accentuated if the driving force activity has high levels of

disturbance on the external world (as occurs with fossil carbon).

Extending upon the principles of the 1st and 2nd Noble Truths, the

3rd and 4th Noble Truths set the basis for making the appropriate

Buddhist response to climate change. According to the nal two

Noble Truths, the way to alleviate the relentless dissatisfaction of life

is to cease attachment and clinging to the desire for material or social

status success and other external world sources of happiness.5

Instead, for true well-being gains, it is necessary to mindfullyconsider,

with the supporting knowledge, the nature of causeeffect relationsassociated with our desires (and their related outcomes) in their full

holistic, ecological, and interconnected sense.

As noted in the 4th Noble Truth, the mental and physical

conditions needed for this way out from dissatisfaction are well-

described by the Eightfold Path which details the required dimensions

of understanding, mental processes, patterns and thoughts, and

actions and behavior (Sangharakshita, 2007). The eight aspects

cover economic and spiritual requirements for well-being and have

a natural ow from wisdom (right understanding and right aspiration)

to moral commitment(right speech, action and livelihood) to mental

regulation (right effort, mindfulness, and concentration). They are

presented as mutually reinforcing rather than a linear sequence of

thought and activity traits. The foundational wisdom (or panna)

elements derive from Buddhist cosmology or explanations about the

Fig. 2.The inuence of Buddhist world views on responses to climate change.

3

However, it is identied in the original DPSIR diagram inFig. 1of the rst paper.

Fig. 3. Effective responses also require understanding of the full environmental impacts

of driving forces back on society (I).

4 It is true that the driving forces behind increased environmental pressures can also

have positive effects. The contemporary ecological modernizationdebate reects the

potential for reducing environmental demands via eco-efciency technological

change, and more recently, adaptive shifts in consumption patterns ( Carolan, 2004).

This raises several issues for the Buddhist perspective. For example, is striving for, even

dematerialized, growth inconsistent with Buddhism? It would seem to align with very

low intervention growthactivities that truly enhance interconnected and sustained

welfare though there would be perceived limits to well-being from material, external

world sources (even with low intervention). Increased population (typically linked to

greater environmental pressure) also has immense positive potential in terms of the

generation of knowledge and new ideas (and positive spillovers and the low marginal

costs of dissemination).5 In particular, two types of desire kama and bhava tanha which focus upon

sensory pleasure and efforts at ego or status gain can be seen as responsible for most

existing environmental pressure (Daniels, 2007).

http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


5/11

nature of universe and also from experience and observed outcomes.

The resulting self-realization and spiritual intelligenceprovides the

transformative understanding and will for release from suffering

(Zohar, 2002; Zsolnai, 2007). The behavioral aspects that make up the

morality set (orsila) within the Eightfold Path relate more to external

activity while samadhi or concentration (together with right effort

and mindfulness) are the internal, mind disciplines. While the

Eightfold Path has many potential aspects that can help in the design

and selection of appropriate responsesto the threat of climate change,more detailed insights are left to the discussion of specic strategies,

where relevant, in the next section.

However, one major theme imbued in the Eightfold Path, of

particular relevance to sustainability issues, is the principle of

moderation or the Middle Way. In brief, the Middle Way describes

thebest approach forreal and sustainedincreases in well-being in life,

for the laity, as the golden mean a concept shared in various

philosophical strands (Marinoff, 2007; Phrabhavanaviriyakhun,

2008). As learned from the Buddha's direct experiences in seeking

the appropriate mental and behavioral modus operandi towards

Nirvana or release from suffering, the effective path lies between the

extremes of hedonistic self-indulgence and sensual pleasure, and

excessive self-mortication or asceticism (Gunasekara, 1982). The

Middle Way is a balanced approach in which basic needs and wants

that genuinely enhance welfare can, and should, be satised for all

people. Thiswould naturallycover food,clothing, warmth, shelter, and

most ecological services as well as psychological security from social

and community-based needs. Buddhism is not opposed to efcient

economic production and material security but output is considered

most valuable in providing the conditions (time, health and energy)

for the more effective spiritualpaths to well-being (Mendis, 1993;

Tideman, 2001). Extremes are be avoided and excessive attachment

and accumulation is inimical to the three spheres (the individual,

society and nature), and individual well-being and spiritual progress.

The key process is to break and close the endless wants-satisfaction

circular gap by the realization of the heedless nature of clinging to

tanha (desire) as a source of well-being. Happiness or satisfaction

derive more from restraint upon desire (Bhikkhu Bodhi, 1987).

Moderation in consumption is upheld as a preferred basis forimproving welfare rather than the obsessive, consumption-xated

lifestyle that has dominated for global market economies. As with

appetite and diet, excess is thought to bring suffering. In regard to

human interaction with the natural environment, moderation is

manifest as a balance between meeting certain key well-being needs

and wants whilst minimizing (disruptive) intervention upon society

andnature. Thenotion echoesthatofsufciency where self-restraint

regarding material needs is a requirement for sustainable develop-

ment and long-term true increases in welfare (Sachs et al., 1998;

Huber, 2000). Moderation alsoreectsthe sentiment, expressed by the

renowned psychologist and economist HerbertSimon (1959), econ-

omist Menchikov and many others, that peopleactuallyseek balanced

satisfaction rather than maximization in their dealings with the

material or external world (Tideman, 2000). Karmic interdependencesupplies adequate cause for adopting guiding principles of compas-

sion, loving-kindness, non-violent motives and mindfulness of the

consequences of initiated actions and events across all three realms. Of

course, although contemporary afuent societies do show signs of

change, these insights that excessive consumption is undesirable,

and minimum intervention in the external world is good are not

generally consistent with their structural underpinnings and self-

reproduction.

The changes required for addressing the roots of the climate

change problem will need to occur at both individual and social

collective levels. Naturally, individual and social choices and action

are inextricably connected. Indeed, the volitional individual changes

that are required to address the roots of climate change are deeply

constrained by wider socioeconomic structures that have

locked-in

many forms of environmentally-signicant behavior such as the daily

commute, household heating, diet, and social status dened on the

basis on material and social success. Hence, there is a concomitant

need for community-wide structural changechange that would only

come about with the support of values, belief and ethical systems

based on the insights and knowledge akin to those outlined in this

paper. Appropriate collective responses are certainly critical for

overcoming structural changes to climate change and the web of

sustainability issues faced by humanity, but this does not negate thecentral role of the reorientation in the mental outlook and behavior of

individual people as consumers and producers.

To describe the range of appropriate individual and societal

responses, it is very useful to frame the discussion in terms of the

extended IPAT, or IPANT, equation outlined in some detail in the rst

paper. This approach demonstrates how Buddhist insights can feed into

the four major sets of underlying driving forces behind the growth in

atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases that is, population

(P), output per person (A), and the nature or composition (N) and

associated technology and environmental-intensity (T)of that output.

To begin with the most problematic issue, there are many possible

interpretations of what Buddhist philosophy means for human

population growth (P) (seeLing, 1969; Searle, 1995). Arguably, the

abjuration of short-term desire and sensual pleasure, realization of

the negative impacts of overpopulation on others, and the ultimate

goal of release from the endless cycle of birth, dissatisfaction and

death, suggests that procreation would be discouraged andthe human

population on Earth would fall and perhaps eventually disappear.

However, this is a complex and contentious matter and it is not

addressed in any more detail here.

Next, there is theelusive concept ofafuence which is measured as

output or consumption per capita (A) in the IPAT equation. Technically,

afuence measured as average levels of economic income available per

person is a socially-constructed monetary value (presented in dollars

per person). It has no necessary biophysical connection (say, to

greenhouse gas emissions in our problem case) except via the nature,

and related technology, of the pattern of consumption (N and T).

However, if N and T remain constant, then growth in afuence will, of

course, lead to greater environmental disruption. From the Buddhistperspective, the desire for maximizing utility via ever-increasing

exchange value activity (as measured in most national income

accounts) is a life activity obsession resulting from ignorance about

the Four Noble Truths, interdependence, and the Eightfold Path. It is not

just the consequences of this action, but the misguided nature of the

intent behind it that detracts from the welfare of those seeking

maximum utility from external sources (especially if their actions

involve disruptive impacts on the world).

This view suggests that afuence, measured by conventional

growth denitions, would be substantively moderated in the general

shift toward lower intervention and expectations regarding external-

based satisfaction. However, it is pragmatic to recognize that vital

levels of economic activity are probably necessary, at least over the

next few decades, to avoid serious adversity and resistance given theexisting structureand workings of much of theworld's developed and

developing economies (Brundtland, 1987; Pryor, 1991). Incremental

reductions at some point in the future may be more consistent with a

Buddhist-inspired vision.

However, given the obstacles and dangers of constraining

economic output in general, it is argued that the primary factors for

viable and effective transformation towards sustainability are the

nature, and associated technology, of the consumption bundle (that is,

N and T). This involves targeting a very substantial reduction in the

social and economic disturbance associated with economic value

produced per person and not simply a focus upon reducing economic

output in a general sense.

To minimizethe social and environmental disturbance of economic

activity,the keytasks areto understand andbuildawareness about the



6/11

ramications of our intent and choices in lifestyle and livelihood. This

includes their direct impact upon our anticipated satisfaction and

more indirectly, via the interconnectedows across the three realms.

Hence, choices about what is wanted from life and the environment

(that is, the demand and consumption that pulls production) should

accurately reecttheirinuence on our long-termwell-being or actual

welfare outcomes. In economic parlance, this involves the aligning of

actual and truepreferences and makes profound sense evenwithin the

discipline's own con

nes.

4. Some specic climate change responses inspired by Buddhism

Selected Buddhism-inspired responses to climate change are

presented in this section with some explanatory discussion. This

overview is intended to be indicative rather than complete. Many

importantideas are only introduced and thedivision between items is

often arbitrary and does not give full justice to their interdependence.

For example, individual awareness, knowledge and attendant insight

are the basis for the Buddhist perspective and truly rationalchoices,

and appropriate changes in education would permeate throughout

most of the individual dimensions outlined. In sum, the responses are

only intended to form a partial but representative integration of

Buddhist views and Western culture.

For organizational clarity, the ten strategic responses outlines have

been grouped into three types (a) research into the interdepen-

dence between economic activity, ongoing economic and environ-

mental effects, and well-being (and the improved measurement of

progress re the latter concept) (b) more direct policy tools to modify

external inuences on people's information, choices and behavior

and (c) societal measures to instigate compatible change in people's

internal goals and world views. These dimensions are all inter-

related.

4.1. Research into economic, environmental and well-being

interdependence

The previous section concluded that the sustained, improved well-

being of humans willdepend largely upon adaptivemodicationto thenature of consumption and its technology-environment consequences

(NandT).Therst majorstep inbeingable toshapeN and T tiesin well

with Buddhism's emphasis on the role of experiential or empirical

understanding and validation. It focuses upon the need for research

and knowledge into two main areas 1. the full chain effects of

economic activity (driving forces) and 2. the links between

consumption and well-being. To support the strategicimplementation

of the fruits of this research and knowledge, a third activity of benet

would be to develop and adopt better indicators that can accurately

assess the favorability of economic(and associatedenvironmental and

social) outcomes and their consistency with broader social goals such

as reducing suffering, discontent, and dissatisfaction.

Response 1. Research into the karmic impacts of specic

economic activity and technologies.Promote research and knowledge to assess climate change and

other environmental impacts (I) of different types, sectors, elds,

or clusters of production and consumption (N), and their

associated technologies (T).

Science and technology have been instrumental as sources of

current environmental problems and the questionable pursuit of

welfare through material superabundance (Yamamoto, 2003).

However, they are sure to be a key aspect of any solution including

a Buddhist-inspired transformation to sustainable and happier

economies. Appropriate scientic effort would cover the support,

development, and application of existing and new chain management

techniques that measure not only direct but also chain or full life

cycle and external ow-on effects and embodied resource use

associated with different typesof socioeconomic activity. This analysis

should cover the whole spectrum of production and consumption

activities and technologies.

While this goal intimates a critical biophysical dimension, social

and economic impacts would be integral in the assessment process

(see the next response). Cost-effectiveness is a key criterion in this

formidable task and there would need to be an initial focus on major

disruption sources and chain impact ows (and fossil carbon-

intensive activity would undoubtedly make this group). Efforts in

the area would become more effective with accumulating expertise,skillsand knowledge. There is already a strongbase with rapid growth

in the development and application of chain management techniques

in ecological economics, and environmental assessment science in

general, over the past two decades (for example, a small sample of

such approaches would include sustainable consumption, life cycle

assessment and environmental and physical inputoutput tables,

material and energy ow analysis, and the United Nations' System of

Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounts (see Daniels, 2002;

Foran et al., 2005; Lorek and Spangenberg, 2001)).

Response 2. Research into the conditions and outcomes that

actually make people and society happier.

Promote research and knowledge about the relationship

between the (i) level and nature of consumption and(ii) welfare

or well-being.

The previous response urges the assessment of the biophysical

changes and metabolic ows induced by specic economic activities

and their interdependent and longer-term effects. In our second

response, the emphasis is upon knowledge of these impacts upon

people's welfare or well-being. Rational decisions are only possible

when people have accurate and reliable information about the goals,

outcomes and means that actually enhance their welfare. This is a

matter of identifying and revealing people's true preferences the

ultimate, unique truth about what is really right and best for a

person and extension of this knowledge to society overall (Tomer,

2003, p.5). Buddhism already has much to say on this topic but

appropriate scientic evidence on actual well-being outcomes would

be most helpful for efcacious economic activity.

Most religions and many political philosophical vantages agree

that actual preferences (the sets of incompletely-informed desires orpreferences embraced so readily by neoclassical economics) need to

be rationally relinquished in favor of true preferences. A key aspect of

this overall strategy would involve reducing the inuence of

advertising and structural economic forces that create or promote

wants that rate poorly by increasing society's metabolism and/or

adding little to or reducing well-being. Together, this information

could facilitate some form of use of happiness/health ratings and

labeling on specic consumer options. The allure of consumer debt as

part of the want creation underlying the consumption-happiness

fallacy would also be discouraged through institutional means and

information about the poor well-being consequences of current, and

especially debt-based, consumption (with its additional burdens of

future work commitment).

There is also a urry of research and enquiry activity underwaylooking at well-being or happiness levels and key inuences. This

aligns well with the needs for Buddhism-informed strategic responses

to climate change (Moro et al., 2008). In scientic circles, examples of

this growth in interest include the proliferation in relevant journals

and journal articles (for example, the Journal of Happiness Studies),

innovative studies of welfare sources and impacts in environmental,

welfare and experimental economics (Gintis, 2000; Welsch, 2009),

and extensive analyses of subjective well-being and related method-

ological development and data compilation as per the inuential

World Database of Happinessmaintained by Erasmus University in

Rotterdam.

Together, the biophysical chain effects and source of happiness

research foci would provide an ideal basis for assessing which areas

or types of economic activity, and associated technologies are least



7/11

disruptive or non-harmful and provide the most cost-effective

means of enhancing human welfare. The rst requirement is to

understand the direct welfare outcomes of specic activities and their

technologies as well as their spillover well-being impacts via

material and energy, waste and other social and environmental

ows through the three realms. Given this knowledge, it is possible to

identify which activities and technologies have the best welfare

outcomes for the least intervention disturbance.

Hence, decisions about adaptive responses would be cognizant ofboth the welfare and climate change contribution of production and

consumption. This would guide individuals, and collective policy

options and strategies as well as major development and investment

in technological, infrastructure and lifestyle futures. Knowledge about

the nature of consumption (N) and the associated environmental-

intensity of the makeup of consumption (T) allow the design of

effective strategies to either:

(1) shift behavior and choices to reduce the absolute and relative

size ofharmful consumption types or clusters possessing high

environmental-intensity(that is, low direct well-being to social

and environmental cost ratio), and/or

(2) promote eco-efcient technology change to reduce environ-

mentaland societal disruption or harm in those production and

consumption sectors with essential or benecial activities but

signicant environmental impact (and in those elds where

technology change is likely to be very cost-effective).

For climate change, example strategies would probably aim to

(a) reduce private car transport kilometers and implement low fossil

carbon integrated alternatives (covering transport, energy and urban

form options that reduce unnecessary spatial separation for key

life activity work, social and leisure functions); (b) change energy-

intensive leisure (e.g. international jet travel) towards activity which

has lower energy needs (e.g. local destinations) or less disruptive

energy sources (say, wind energy); and (c) change in diet or nutrition

choices away from livestock-based production with its high environ-

mental demands and animal suffering, towards vegetarian produce

that is not dependent upon fossil fuels.6

Response 3. Develop and implement new progress indicators to

direct policy and strategic policy option choices.

The breakdown of simplistic relations between undifferentiated

output, consumption or afuence, and well-being, hastens the needfor

morerealistic measuresof societal progress. It suggestsa moveaway

from grossdomestic product per capita and related indicators towards

conditions such as subjective well-being (Diener et al., 1999) and

moredirect lifesatisfactionmeasures thatwould evolve fromscientic

research into the linkages between lifestyle and consumption choices

and ambitions, and welfare (as proposed in the second response

concerning new research and knowledge foci). Hence, individual

and societal evaluation of what constitutes improvements would

integrate and internalize the full social, economic and environmental

consequences of options. Narrow economic indicators based onincomplete costs and benets would gradually be replaced by more

valid karmic progress indicators that account for interdependence

effects in measuring welfare change.

This is widely-recognized as a complex task with many aspects

requiring further research and development for the broad-based

adoption of satisfactory measures. However, progress has unfolded

with the earlier social development and sustainability indicators such

as the Human Development index (HDI) and Index of Sustainable

Economic Welfare (ISEW) and now, more sophisticated and poten-

tially robust, measures such as subjective well-being and Bhutan's

gross national happiness(Daly and Cobb, 1989; Alkire et al., 2008).

Recent developments in the latter include its coverage of nine

dimensions many with close links to the responses outlined here.

They include psychological well-being, time use, community vitality,

health, education, environmental diversity, living standard and

governance.

The list of potential climate change responses that are consistent

with the insights and ethical basis of Buddhism is extensive. Positive

change in the behavior of individuals would occur, over and beyondmarket and other policy directives, as a direct result of widespread

recognition of interdependence and greater knowledge and aware-

ness of the full consequences of one's motives and actions. More

sustainable lifestyle and consumption and technology choices would

ensue. The perennial notion of consumer sovereignty in economics

can become a powerful ally of sustainability changes in demand,

combined with better information, intent and freedom to do so,

promote appropriate changes in production.

However, there are many forms of collective action and policy to

encourage and facilitate behavioral change by individuals as producers

and consumersin order to ecologize N andT (patterns of consumption

and environment-related technologies) under Buddhist perspectives

such as minimum disturbance andtrue well-being through mindful and

moderated consumption. A selection of direct policy climate change

responses, based on Buddhism's world view, is presented below.

5. Direct policy tools to foster change

Response 4. Adjust market prices to incorporate the full inter-

dependence costs and benets of production and consumption.

As with the standard environmental economic approach, a major

policy tool based on the Buddhist ideas surveyed here would involve

the use of taxes and subsidies that internalize the full karmic

consequences of specic goods, services and activities. Such corrective

accounting policy would be based upon much more accurate

knowledge of economic and well-being social costs and benets of

specic consumption types (and their associated technologies). It

would be authenticated by the value changes discussed more in the

next section.Two major classes of goods and services would be discouraged via

market-based instruments (such as taxes). These are (1) output with

substantial negative spillovers on society, nature (and hence back on

the initiating individuals), and (2) goods and services that have

signicant environmental demands but actually end up contributing

little to increasesin individual or community well-being. Theextreme

environmental and social disruption and externalities of fossil carbon

use are obviously a case in point for the former class.

The second groupincludesmany adaptive and positional goods

(Hirsch, 1976; Frank, 1997, 2003; Mainwaring, 2001; Layard, 2005;

Baucells and Sarin, 2007). Unlike basic goods such as food, sleep and

social relationships, adaptive goods are subject to rapidly diminishing

loss in utility after possession or provision, and are evidenced by

items such as house size andviews, rich food, competitive professionalstatus, freeways, and increasing audio-visual quality, performance and

size. Positional goods only provide short-lived welfare gains to their

consumers whilst others do not possess them. As societalconsumption

increases and social comparison-based welfare dissipates, they

ultimately involve zero sum welfare games. Typical positional goods

often have signicant elements of conspicuous consumption and

include exclusive real estate or fashion items, exotic tourism and

travel, and luxury or fast cars. The two types of goods are related via

their dependence on welfare gains via a dynamic reference level.

People often commit or sacrice large amounts of their time, energy

andotherlife options into thepursuit of these forms of consumption

in the misguided belief that the net result of their pursuit and

consumption they will bring lasting satisfaction (Baucells and Sarin,

2007).

6 In addition to its major land degradation, biodiversity loss, water use and human

health impacts, global livestock-based industry generates more greenhouse gas

emissions (in CO2equivalents) than transport (Steinfeld et al., 2006).

http://-/?-http://-/?-


8/11

Alternatively, lower production costs and prices and other market

adjustments canbe used to nurture and encouragesociallyproductive

enterprise and organizations that produce compassion or positive

interdependence goods and services (or PIGS!). These activities

are replete with spillover benets through the individual, societal and

natural realms. Examples might include health promotion; education;

peace initiatives; appropriate, sustainable technology transfer and

development assistance for low income nations; nature conservation

and restoration; renewable energy supplies and products; low impactand healthy food production; physical and mental health and stress

relief programs such as meditation, yoga and other forms of low

energy welfare enhancement; friendship, social capital programs, and

community building; charitable activity; spiritual activities; transport

and housing forms that reduce non-renewable energy needs;

balanced family and leisure time; and material and energy saving

appliances and practices. Technology change, such as a shift to

renewable energy, does not guarantee sustainability as many

alternatives have signicant negative consequences such as land

and ecosystem loss. Desire and demands that, by their very essence,

require substantial intervention and disruption in the natural world,

must be mitigated as part of an effective response.

The provision of basic goods such as food and shelter to im-

poverished in low and higher income nations would also become a

societal priority given the substantial and real well-being gains that are

amplied by interdependence, and undiminished by adaptation and

social comparison tendencies.

Other more command-and-controlapproaches such as legal and

regulatory instruments and standards could play a complementary

role in forcing a shift in the nature of consumption and associated

technologies towards less disruptive patterns, and modifying societal

denitions of status. However, their coercive nature does not t well

with the tolerance and individual spiritual path freedom emphases of

the Buddhist way.

Response 5. Extensive support and funding of technology for

minimizing sources of climate change (and other environmental)

pressures.

Very substantial investment in material, energy and waste-saving,

and renewable energy technologies, would be a foundation forsuccessfully inducing appropriate changes in T (the environment-

intensity of economic output). The ability to globally diffuse a green

techno-economic paradigm based on the material and energy-

saving potential of pervasive information and communication tech-

nologies would provide virtuous circles of innovation and resource

productivity gains, thus supporting sustainability and reduction of

climate change pressures (Daniels, 2003; Phillimore, 2001). This must

take into account offsetting growth in consumption and resource

ows from the rebound effect of greater productivity and income.

Technologies must also be assessed in terms of their inter-related

social and environmental impacts. In contrast to thecurrent proigate

consumption of fossil carbon energy, their use should be directed

towards removing their centrality in existing and emerging higher

income economies. This investment in technology would be reaf-rmed by widespread appreciation of the inuence of the nature and

levels of consumption upon well-being (as outlined inSection 3and

investigated scientically in proposed responses 1 and 2).

Response 6. International policy and assistance for welfare

growth and minimum environmental disturbance in the develop-

ing world.

The implications of Buddhist ethics for climate change and

sustainability in lower income and developing nations is a huge

topic and worthy of an entire paper in its own right. Briey, some

useful strategies consistent with the Buddhist world view would

include the non-exploitative transfer of knowledge, technology and

capital ows focused on encouraging output and consumption with

positive and undisruptive social and environmental effects. There is

great potential for leapfrogging the historical problems and techno-

logical and well-being assumption errors of the higher income nations

and in facilitating material and energy-saving technology and capital

forms. Consumption choices in higher income nations and careful

consideration of the chain effects and consequences of trade and

capitalows would constitute primary concerns.

6. Encouraging change from within

Response 7. Moral suasion, education, social policy, mediasupport.

Internal value changes to ameliorate climate change pressures

would be related to people's awareness of the interconnected impacts

of their choices andactions. Based on theresearch about thetrue well-

being outcomes of consumption, many forms of formal and informal

community education and information dissemination via mass and

specic media could help fundamentally change many of the key

drivers underlying climate change. A major goal would be to help

redene collective denitions of status and promote meritocratic

systems where merit is assessed in terms of positive, interdepen-

dence economic output, non-violence and compassion, and judi-

cious action hinged upon minimum disturbance and loving-kindness.

Response 8. Changes in individual's roles as producers.

The impetus for positive climate change actions by people as

businesswould derive from both external social inuences, and the

discursive and practical consciousness of producers as actors or free

agents of change. Externally, producers would respond to the

interdependence-conscious consumer, household investor, general

community and their representative governance. These forces help

push social responsibility, triple bottom line reporting, environmental

management systems (EMS), voluntary agreements and other

volitional institutional and behavioral changes that work to reduce

producers' environmental and resource impact demands. Fossil fuel

and other sources of greenhouse gas emissions lie at the heart of

current pressures threatening sustainability. External market forces

also drive positive change because of the cost-competitiveness eco-

efciency gains associated with less environmental resource demands

and impacts.

A related impetus comes from the recognition of transactioncost advantages of Buddhist ethics with its implicit yet powerful

underlying quality of compassion and a no-harm world view and

motives. Trust, strength of social capital, and other aspects of

transaction costs and informal institutions are well-known as very

signicant inuences upon the functionality of economic systems

(North, 1990). This also applies to corporate culture and co-operative,

harmonious and productive performance within the rm's social

environment (Tideman, 2001).

Finally, producersare subject to growing pressure to restructure in

favor of reducing greenhouse gas emissions amidst other forms of

sustainability from the increasing use of government carrots and

sticks such as market-based instruments, regulation, eco-informa-

tion and other strategic policy targeted at sustainability.

However, with an economy imbued by the world view andEightfold Path of Buddhism, a key internal impetus for change from

business leader and workers would simply come from their afliated

ethical principles intertwined with the realization and knowledge

that their personal long-term welfare is also tied to the economic,

social and environmental consequences of their choices and activities

as producers. Producers do have many options in providing the

services demanded by consumers, and non-violence and minimum

disruption of nature can be intrinsic criteria of one's labor activity

(DesJardins, 2007). Environmental responsibility falls naturally in the

lap of the producer cognizant of the Right Livelihood aspect of the

Noble Eightfold Path (Phrabhavanaviriyakhun, 2008).

Work is a major time use of an individual's life and better well-

being will depend on changing physical and social conditions and

production activities and consequences so as to enhance the joy of co-



9/11

operative work. There is evidence of such ethical change in the

pronounced shift towards peer-to-peer (P2P) production associated

with information and communication technologies and on-line, open

source collaborative design (Bauwens, 2006). This third or distributed

mode of production has immense potential for positive spillovers

(akin to the PIGS) with its negligible marginal cost of information

transfer and intellectual synergy. The selsh monetary gain motives of

neoclassical thinking are effectively replaced by respect and status

bene

ts from giving and valuable contribution for the collective andinterconnected good. In the right context, this cooperative production

mode seems more than adequate in displacing competitive-based

outcomes. P2P production has been openly linked to ethical changes

associated with Buddhist notions of sustainable economies (Bauwens,

2006).

The Buddhism and business interface is a primary example of the

profound potential for positive change from actions informed by the

assumption of pervasive interdependence. As with many views on

corporate social responsibility, morality and business vitality can co-

exist and prosper under the Buddhist economic model (DesJardins,

2007). Self-interestis compatible with concern for well-being across

the three interconnected realms. The actual welfare of producers is

not a product of short-term prot maximization but derives from

effective and efcient activities and material outcomes that supply

goods and services imparting genuine well-being at a society-wide

level (and at fair prices) over the long-term. This is not just a response

to coercive policy and regulation or even market survival, customer

demand and patronage, and inter-rm and intra-rm trust and

operability but stems from awareness and deeper value change in

people in their producer roles in society.

Response 9. Encourage the liberation of personal time as the

ultimate resource required for compassionate and loving-kind-

ness relationships.

The drive for success based on material accumulation and control of

people and energy has led to poverty in perhaps the most important of

the resources available for the potential improvement human well-

beingtime. The substitution of time consumed for self-interested

material gain by thatinvolvedin reection and activity with compassion

and other-regarding positive consequences is central feature of theBuddhist outlook(Thich Nhat Hanh, 2008). Time canbe considered a gift

and a fundamental requirement for careful and welfare-enhancing

choices and actionsbased on compassion and loving-kindness in taking

care of oneself and other people.Baucells and Sarin (2007, p.31) note

that Time is the ultimate nite resource; therefore, its allocation

between work and leisure to improve happiness needsfurther empirical

and theoretical inquiry. Restoring a harmonious balance between work

and leisure is a precondition to catching the elusive goalof happiness.

Obsession with consumption, and the work to afford that consumption,

shrinks time. Average hours worked person grew by almost 20% in the

United States between 1980 and 2000. Paradoxically, free time is

currently treasured as the most important priority of life in the U.S.

well above money (Kuan, 2008). Of course, there are many structural

constraints (for example, housing needs and costs) and collective effortwould have to combine with expectations and motives to reduce this

imperative.

7. Conclusion

In this article, an integrated systemsframework has been developed

for comprehensively analyzing major environmental problems like

climate change in terms of the ethical and welfare dimensions that are

considered to be critical under a world view such as Buddhism.In part 1,

the innovations embedded in the heuristic framework include the

integration of the two major environmental assessment tools (DPSIR

andextendedIPAT approaches) witha keyrole of valuesand well-being.

The sociocultural extensions to the basic biophysical-economic model

show how Buddhism provides a clear analysis of the problematic

sources of driving forces behind behavior. Throughout, the resulting

tool has been used to demonstrate and specify how theBuddhist world

view can make a valuable contribution towards effectively addressing

anthropogenic climate change. The integrated systems framework

provides an ideal basis forunderstandingand studying the fundamental

sources, relationships and possible responses to climate change, in

terms of human beliefs, thought, behavior and social patterns and

structures. The mode of analysis has had much in common with

ecological economics

with primary conceptual and methodologicalroles ascribed to ethics, the ecologization of society, social capital and

sustainability, and ultimate means and ends via an extensive consid-

eration of well-being and the goals of human endeavor.

In this concluding paper, the focus has been upon using the

systems framework to demonstrate how Buddhist and related world

views can feed into appropriate and effective responses to the

impending challenges of climate change. With knowledge of the

underlying nature of beliefs, goals, wants and choices, appropriate

strategies can be designed and implemented. The strategic contribu-

tion from Buddhism draws from the 3rd and 4th Noble Truths and

Eight-fold Path which have a series of practical themesto guide such a

response. The focus has been upon overall afuence (A), and the link

between types of consumption (N) and associated the environment-

technology relations (T) as the driving force factor groups behind

climate change. However, this has been delineated to a need for

targeting N and T for climate sustainability given the practical

limitations of attempting to constrain overall growth in current

global economic conditions (especially for lower-income nations).

General themes that pervade the Buddhist contribution include

the capability for enhanced well-being through reducing the

socioeconomic metabolism via moderated consumption and the full

analysis of economic, environmental and welfare impacts of different

types of consumption and lifestyle and associated technologies.

Adaptive principles for positive change include non-harm, the Middle

Way and minimum intervention and disruption of the natural world.

Using the Buddhism-inspired principles in reference to the integrated

systems framework, nine specic inter-related strategies have been

outlined ranging from extensive research into the nature and

measurement of well-being and biophysical and economic chaineffects of economic activity and technologies, to policy to encourage

the technical and economic means for embedding well-being effects

into behavior, to the provision of mechanisms to sway values to be

more consistent with sustainability and better welfare in a highly

interconnected universe.

The discussion concludes that Buddhism does indeed have much

to offer in terms of the identication, acceptance and implementation

of appropriate and effectiveresponses to climate change.7 Many of the

strategic recommendations from a Buddhist-inspired analysis are

similar to those from conventional environmental or ecological

economics. However, the unique and useful aspect of Buddhism,

over more secular approaches, is that it provides a viable option to

build and ll the missing logical and practical ethical basis for

sustainability. The secular path alone has not been convincing as asufcient means towards sustainability, real improvements in human

well-being and survival itself (Zadek, 1993).

A shift away from material and energy-intensive economieswould

have complex and contingent implications for employment (and

social stability). Global evidence for more sustainable, dematerialized

economies does not suggest that such changes bring unemployment

and economic malaise. Competitive losses in environment-intensive

activity may cause structural unemployment but it is unlikely that

these sectors and related technologies would persist in new,

7 Given space limitations, we have not surveyed the many possible aspects and

interpretations of Buddhism that can be considered to inhibit required social and

economic change for sustainability. For more on this issue see Daniels (2005) and

Pryor (1991).

http://-/?-http://-/?-


10/11

sustainable economies. A more fundamental aspect relating to

Buddhism would be the questioning of the need for long working

hours and high income for positional or adaptive goods and services.

Low-intervention economies canstillhave vital levelsof activity and

employment providing real well-being enhancements across society.

The most important contributions from Buddhism include its

discourse on the nature of human well-being and centrality attached

to interdependence which explains the adverse consequences of

anthropogenic disruption and disturbance of the processes and

owsof the natural environment. Its real strength is in the guidelines that it

provides for consumption, and related production imperatives and

choices driving the environmental pressures behind climate change.

Its thematic response is focused upon moderated and mindful

consumption drawing upon scientic understanding and the funda-

mental idea that minimizing selsh external attachment leading to

disturbance of nature, is in the best interests of people and societies.

Awareness and knowledge provide the basis for mindfulness and

action, and behavioral change. These changes invoke the need for

more simple living and timespace activity patterns, and consump-

tion bundles and levels that involve less environmental demands and

the freeing up of personal time away from the ineffective pursuit of

material success focused on self-interest. Zadek (1993, p.8) aptly

describes the Buddhist economic approach:

Buddhism acknowledges the need for production and consump-

tion, and accepts that this involves processes of negotiation,

trading, acquisition of capital, and so on. At the same time,

Buddhism challenges the individual (and society as a whole) to

contextualize these processes in Buddhist values, including for

example the idea of Right Thought, Action and Livelihood

The objective of economics should shift explicitly to the actual

welfare consequences of creating wealthfrom nature. Wealth must

be assessed in terms of its full social net benet (karmic spillovers)

and attendant impact on actual well-being. Well-being, rather than

wealth accumulation, is the variable to be maximized in effective

economic systems (Phrabhavanaviriyakhun, 2008). Maximum well-

being with minimum consumption and nature impact is the essentialBuddhist economic rationale (Schumacher, 1973).

Beyond direct economic facets, Buddhism has many other roles in

the task of addressing climate change as part of its more general

potential offerings for sustainable development. Examples include its

envisioning capacity and its support for social capital centered around

community building and compassionate interdependence traits

that are critical for sustainable development.

Many developing nations including several where Buddhism

prevails seem bent on the consumption-desire path that is

increasingly looking imprudent for those who have followed it before.

A certain threshold of material need fulllment is necessary to avoid

poverty and for compassionate generosity. However, with hope, the

experience of the past could be used with the essence of Buddhist

world views to help direct new forms of economic development thatare more sustainable and better at engendering real improvements in

welfare.

While acceptance of its basic precepts requires a level of intuitive

appealthat will notsit comfortably for some scientists, theworld view

of Buddhism as a practical philosophy for sustainable living is replete

with notions in accordance with those now central to the contem-

porary array of environmental, social and ethical sciences. The non-

dogmatic, empirical and accommodating nature of its philosophy will

strengthen its potential to contribute to the profound, but necessary,

socioeconomic changes for sustained well-being. Individual liberty,

entrepreneurship and markets guided by appropriate sustainability

ethics and mindfulness that make up the essence of Buddhism are

likely to play a key role in any paradigm capable of coping with

climate change.

References

Alkire, S., Santos, M., Ura, K., 2008. Gross National Happiness and Poverty in Bhutan:Applying the GNH Index Methodology to explore Poverty. (OPHI RP4a, November2008). Paper presented at the Gross National Happiness Conference in Bhutan, at26 November 2008.

Bardi, U., 2009. Peak oil: the four stages of a new idea. Energy 34 (3), 323 326.Baucells, M., Sarin, R.K., 2007. Does More Money Buy You More Happiness? Decisions,

Operations, and Technology Management. Paper RS16. http://repositories.cdlib.org/anderson/dotm/RS16 2007.

Bauwens, M., 2006. The Political Economy of Peer Production. Post-autistic EconomicsReview (37) article 3, http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue37/Bauwens37.htm.

Bhikkhu Bodhi, 1987. Foreword. In: Sandell, K. (Ed.), Buddhist Perspectives on theEcocrisis. Buddhist Publication Society, Kandy, Sri Lanka, pp. ivv.

Brundtland, G., 1987. Our Common Future. World Commission on Environment andDevelopment. Oxford University Press, Oxford, England.

Carolan, M.S., 2004. Ecological modernization theory: what about consumption?Society and Natural Resources 17 (3), 247260.

Daly, H., Cobb, J., 1989. For the Common Good. Beacon Press, Boston.Daniels, P.L.,2002. Approaches for quantifying themetabolism of physical economies: a

comparative survey: part II: review of individual approaches. Journal of IndustrialEcology 6 (1), 6588.

Daniels, P.L., 2003. Buddhist economics and the environment: material ow analysisand the moderation of society's metabolism. International Journal of SocialEconomics 30 (1/2), 833.

Daniels, P.L., 2005. Economic systems and the Buddhist world view: the 21st centurynexus. Journal of Socio-Economics 34 (2), 245 268.

Daniels, P.L., 2007. Buddhism and the transformation to sustainable economies. Societyand Economy 29 (2), 155180.DesJardins, J.R., 2007. Business, Ethics, and the Environment: Imagining a Sustainable

Future. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.Diener, E., Suh, E., Lucas, R., Smith, H., 1999. Subjective well-being: three decades of

progress. Psychological Bulletin 125, 276302.Foran, B., Lenzen, M., Dey, C., 2005. Balancing Act: a Triple Bottom Line Analysis of the

AustralianEconomy. Canberra, A.C.T., CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems andUniversityof Sydney.

Frank, R., 1997. The frame of reference as a public good. The Economic Journal 445,18321847.

Frank, R.H., 2003. Does absolute income matter? Presented at The Paradoxes ofHappiness in Economics conference Milan, Italy, March 21.

Gabrielsen, P., Bosch, P., 2003. Environmental Indicators: Typology and Use inReporting. European Environment Agency. EEA internal working paper.

Gintis, H., 2000. Beyond homo economicus: evidence from experimental economics.Ecological Economics 35 (3), 311322.

Graedel, T., Allenby, B., 1995. Industrial Ecology. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Gunasekara, V., 1982. Basic Buddhism: An Outline of the Buddha's Teaching. Buddhist

Society of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.Hirsch, F., 1976. Social Limits to Growth. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.Huber, J., 2000. Towards industrial ecology: sustainable development as a concept of

ecological modernization. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 2 (4),269285.

Kuan, I., 2008. Americans Value Free Time over Money: Survey. http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSN0145197720080502. May2, 2008.Accessed August5, 2008.

Layard, R., 2005. Happiness: Lessons from a New Science. Allen Lane, London.Ling, T., 1969. Buddhist factors in population growth and control. Population Studies 23

(1), 5360.Lorek, S., Spangenberg, J., 2001. Indicators of environmentally sustainable household

consumption. International Journal of Sustainable Development 4 (1), 101120.Mainwaring, L., 2001. Environmental values and the frame of reference. Ecological

Economics 38 (3), 391401.Marinoff, L., 2007. TheMiddle Way: Finding Happiness in a World of Extremes. Sterling

Publishing, New York.Mendis, P. 1993. Buddhist equilibrium: The theory of middle path for sustainable

development. St. Paul. Staff Paper P93-2. Department of Agricultural and AppliedEconomics, University of Minnesota. January.

Moro, M., Brereton, F., Ferreira, S., Clinch, J., 2008. Ranking quality of life usingsubjective well-being data. Ecological Economics 65 (3), 448460.

Narada, M., 1966. Buddhism in a Nutshell. Buddhist Publication Society, Kandy, Ceylon.North, D.C., 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Perez, P., Batten, D.F., 2006. Complex Science for a Complex World: Exploring Human

Ecosystems with Agents. From Publisher's home page http://epress.anu.edu.auAccessed Feb 12, 2008.

Phillimore, J., 2001. Schumpeter, Schumacher and the greening of technology.Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 13 (1), 2337.

Phrabhavanaviriyakhun, 2008. Buddhist economics. UrbanDharma.org http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma5/buddhisteco.html.

Pryor, F., 1991. A Buddhist economic system in practice. The American Journal ofEconomics and Sociology 50 (1), 1732.

Reisch, L.A., Rpke, I., 2004. The Ecological Economics of Consumption. Edward Elgar,Cheltenham, UK.

Sachs, W., Loske, R., Linz, M., 1998. Greening the North: A Post-industrial Blueprint for

Ecology and Equity. Zed Books, London.

http://repositories.cdlib.org/anderson/dotm/RS16http://repositories.cdlib.org/anderson/dotm/RS16http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue37/Bauwens37.htmhttp://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue37/Bauwens37.htmhttp://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSN0145197720080502http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSN0145197720080502http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSN0145197720080502http://epress.anu.edu.au/http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma5/buddhisteco.htmlhttp://www.urbandharma.org/udharma5/buddhisteco.htmlhttp://www.urbandharma.org/udharma5/buddhisteco.htmlhttp://www.urbandharma.org/udharma5/buddhisteco.htmlhttp://www.urbandharma.org/udharma5/buddhisteco.htmlhttp://epress.anu.edu.au/http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSN0145197720080502http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSN0145197720080502http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue37/Bauwens37.htmhttp://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue37/Bauwens37.htmhttp://repositories.cdlib.org/anderson/dotm/RS16http://repositories.cdlib.org/anderson/dotm/RS16


11/11

Sangharakshita, 2007. The Buddha's Noble Eightfold Path (Buddhist Wisdom forToday). Windhorse Publications, Birmingham, UK.

Schumacher, E.F., 1973. Small is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as if People Mattered.Abacus, London.

Searle, D.R., 1995. Population growth, resource consumption, and the environment:seeking a common vision for a troubled world. Centre for Studies in Religion andSociety Un., Victoria, Brit Col.

Simon, H., 1959. Theories of decision making in economics and behavioral science.American Economic Review 49 (3), 253283.

Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T., 2006. Livestock's Long Shadow: EnvironmentalIssues and Options. FAO, Rome.

Thich Nhat Hanh, V., 2008. Protecting families from being broken. In: Manh That, L.,Nhat Tu, T. (Eds.), Family Problems and the Buddhist Response. Culture andInformation Press, Hanoi.

Tideman, S., 2000. Enterprise and development in the 21st Century: Compassion orcompetition? A forum discussion with H.H. the DalaiLama, Asoka, the Netherlands,2000.

Tideman, S., 2001. Gross National Happiness: Towards Buddhist Economics. Adaptedfrom paper presented to a forum with leaders and scholars from Bhutan, in theNetherlands, January, 2001.

Tomer, J.F.,2003. Beyond therationality of economic man,towardthe truerationality ofman. Discussion Paper. Department of Economics and Finance, Riverdale. NewYork.

Tukker, A., 2008. Sustainability: a multi-interpretable notion the book's normativestance. In: Tukker, A., Charter,M., et al. (Eds.), System Innovation for Sustainability:1. Perspectives on Radical Changes to Sustainable Consumption and Production.Greenleaf, Shefeld.

Welsch, H., 2009. Implications of happiness research for environmental economics.Ecological Economics 68, 27352742.

Yamamoto, S., 1998. Contribution of Buddhism to environmental thoughts. The Journalof Oriental Studies 8, 144173.

Yamamoto, S., 2003. Mahayana Buddhism and environmental ethics: from theperspective of the consciousness-only doctrine. In: Dockett, K., Dudley-Grant, G.,Bankart,P. (Eds.), Psychology and Buddhism:from Individual to Global Community

(International andCultural Psychology).Kluwer Academic,New York, pp. 239

255.Zadek, S., 1993. The practice of Buddhist economics: another view. The AmericanJournal of Economics and Sociology 52 (4), 433446.

Zohar, D., 2002. Leadership physicist. In: Brown, T., Crainer, S., et al. (Eds.), BusinessMinds. Financial Times Prentice Hall, New York.

Zsolnai, L., 2007. Why Ethics Needs Spirituality. Social Science Research Network.http://ssrn.com/paper=984775.Accessed June 20, 2007.

http://ssrn.com/paper=984775http://ssrn.com/paper=984775http://ssrn.com/paper=984775

Daniels P., (2010) Economics Buddhism - Part 2 New views and practices for sustinable world...

Documents

Transcript of Daniels P., (2010) Economics Buddhism - Part 2 New views and practices for sustinable world...