The treehugger lady!

 

She has a MBA in Sustainable management...

If you think about it the title of the article shouldn't even be called ethical markets. The whole premise of economy is to allocate scarce resources in the most efficient manner to satisfy human desires. Based on this it is ridiculous that we do not account businesses for environmental costs; it is simply paving the way for great inefficiency which goes against the basic economic principles. This is what most people fail to see, that the environment and economics actually go hand by hand. Hence we need to adjust our economies to Environmental Management and hold our industries accountable for any environmental liability costs and other significant environmental costs simply because that is practicing a true economy. If you would like to read more about Environmental Management go to: http://www.emawebsite.org/about_ema.htm.

My father used to say that only rich countries can afford to be environmentally friendly. I agree. Economic development does come as an opposite to environmental conservation.

However Europeans seem to have forgotten that in the 19th century they ravaged their natural resources to a degree which would give any tree huger a hart attack. In order for third world countries to develop they must go through such a phase so that they can gain the wealth to worry about it.

An ethical third world government would give foreign pressure groups the finger if the choice is between ecology or starvation of the people.

In this way I think GDP is also a measure of environment-friendliness because once you have enough wealth to quit worrying about starvation you can begin to worry about the greater world around you as explained by Maslow's pyramid.

GDP doesn't treat education as a cost. In an instant picture of an economy. Invariably in the future the GDP would rise as an imminent consequence of education.

Education comes as a result of progress, not before progress. Otherwise Cuba would be the most developed country in the world.

If a country is in extreme poverty you can't expect people to send their children to school. "How can I study if I'm hungry?"

Again with the instant picture thing, although medical care can make the spending of money increase the GDP it does so at the expense of economical wellness in the future, so again the GDP is an accurate measurement.

Yes it is true that GDP sets the value of people and the environment to 0, I wouldn't have it otherwise. Environment and people are unexploited resources, the GDP only measures resources that are being currently exploited. When a society is able to exploit these resources then they will have a greater GDP.

In conclusion stop thinking in absolutist terms and start thinking at the margin. The GDP will eventually reflect all the "loopholes" you mentioned in the long run as societies develop the ability to exploit unused resources, save money for investment, and make social investments such as for education. In other words get a course in differential calculus to help analyse the true meaning of GDP.