Fiscal policy and ecological sustainability: a post-Keynesian perspective

Fiscal policy has a strong role to play in the transition to an ecologically sustainable economy. This paper critically discusses the way that green fiscal policy has been analysed in both conventional and post-Keynesian approaches. It then uses a recently developed post-Keynesian ecological macroeconomic model in order to provide a comparative evaluation of three different types of green fiscal policy: carbon taxes, green subsidies and green public investment. We show that (i) carbon taxes reduce global warming but increase financial risks due to their adverse effects on the profitability of firms and credit availability; (ii) green subsidies and green public investment improve ecological efficiency, but their positive environmental impact is partially offset by their macroeconomic rebound effects; and (iii) a green fiscal policy mix derives better outcomes than isolated policies. Directions for future heterodox macroeconomic research on the links between fiscal policy and ecological sustainability are suggested

Should Biodiversity be Useful? Scope and Limits of Ecosystem Services as an Argument for Biodiversity Conservation

Contains fulltext : 142180.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)This article examines the argument that biodiversity is crucial for well-functioning ecosystems and that such ecosystems provide important goods and services to our human societies, in short the ecosystem services argument (ESA). While the ESA can be a powerful argument for nature preservation, we argue that its dominant functionalist interpretation is confronted with three significant problems. First, the ESA seems unable to preserve the nature it claims to preserve. Second, the ESA cannot explain why those caring about nature want to preserve it. Third, the ESA might undermine its own goal because it potentially decreases environmental motivations

Ecosystem services as an argument for biodiversity preservation: Why its strength is its Problem - Reply to Cimon-Morin et al

Item does not contain fulltex

Balancing Public Values During the Energy Transition - How Can German and Dutch DSOs Safeguard Sustainability?

Distribution of electricity constitutes an essential link in the energy sector value chain for which Distribution System Operators (DSOs) bear the responsibility. While executing that role, DSOs are expected to take into consideration public values, such as the availability, affordability and sustainability of the infrastructure they manage. The energy transition causes DSOs to deal with increasingly unpredictable flows of locally generated renewable energy, requiring more response options than current legislation provides. This paper uses legal-empirical research (interviews and surveys) to demonstrate that German and Dutch DSOs increasingly struggle with the limited consideration they can give sustainability during the transition towards a smart and renewables-based energy system. DSOs experience an imbalance within the energy public value triangle. Unbalanced public values, as perceived by DSOs, are a symptom of the mismatch between the DSOs’ daily practice, shaped by the challenges of the energy transition, and existing legislation. This paper compares European, German, and Dutch (forthcoming) legislation intended to further the energy transition, and analyzes the pros and cons of the various approaches in terms of their impact on the DSOs’ challenges. On that basis, legislative changes are recommended to clarify the role of DSOs, reduce public value tensions for DSOs, and support DSOs in a more balanced overall response to the energy transition. • DSOs find it increasingly difficult to balance the public values they are to protect • Current German and Dutch legislation leaves limited room for sustainability • Legislative changes are recommended to provide DSOs with more response option