How important is natural capital in terms of sustaining real output? Revisiting the natural capital/human-made capital substitutability debate. Lawn, P. International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, 3(4):418–435, 2003. 00019
How important is natural capital in terms of sustaining real output? Revisiting the natural capital/human-made capital substitutability debate [link]Paper  abstract   bibtex   
This paper revisits the natural capital/human-made capital substitutability debate by putting forward a production function incorporating the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Use of this alternative production function shows that, where relevant, the elasticity of substitution between natural capital and human-made capital is less than one. Moreover, as attempts are made to increase the stock of human-made capital to offset the depletion of natural capital, the elasticity of substitution moves closer to zero. This suggests three things. First, even if one focuses entirely on resource availability and ignores the need for waste assimilative and life-support services, human-made capital cannot serve as a substitute for natural capital. Second, since a given quantity of real output requires an irreducible quantity of resource input, there is a need to maintain a minimum stock of resource-providing natural capital. Third, natural resource policy and national income measurements should be based on a strong rather than weak sustainability stance.
@article{lawn_how_2003,
	title = {How important is natural capital in terms of sustaining real output? {Revisiting} the natural capital/human-made capital substitutability debate},
	volume = {3},
	shorttitle = {How important is natural capital in terms of sustaining real output?},
	url = {http://www.inderscienceonline.com/doi/abs/10.1504/IJGENVI.2003.004151},
	abstract = {This paper revisits the natural capital/human-made capital    substitutability debate by putting forward a production function  incorporating  the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Use of this alternative production function  shows  that,  where  relevant, the  elasticity  of  substitution  between  natural capital and human-made capital is less than one. Moreover, as attempts are made to increase the stock of human-made capital to offset the depletion of natural capital, the elasticity of substitution moves closer to zero. This suggests three  things.  First,  even  if  one  focuses  entirely  on  resource  availability  and  ignores the need for waste assimilative and life-support services, human-made capital  cannot  serve  as  a  substitute  for  natural  capital.  Second,  since  a  given  quantity of real output requires an irreducible quantity of resource input, there is  a  need  to  maintain  a  minimum  stock  of  resource-providing  natural  capital.  Third,  natural  resource  policy  and  national  income  measurements  should  be  based on a strong rather than weak sustainability stance.},
	number = {4},
	urldate = {2016-11-28},
	journal = {International Journal of Global Environmental Issues},
	author = {Lawn, Philip},
	year = {2003},
	note = {00019},
	keywords = {collapse, limits-to-growth},
	pages = {418--435},
	file = {Lawn - 2003 - How important is natural capital in terms of susta.pdf:C\:\\Users\\rsrs\\Documents\\Zotero Database\\storage\\5BNECA6C\\Lawn - 2003 - How important is natural capital in terms of susta.pdf:application/pdf}
}

Downloads: 0