180 zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA Book Reciews /Ecological Economics 9 (I 994) I79- I83 Mr. Lewis could clear his mind of the brown delusion that services are physically nonconsumptive by just taking a good look at the physical plant of George Washington University, especially the hospital, where services of education and medi- cal care are daily produced all around him. The idea that economic growth, even the growth of a service institution like GWU, can continue forever because it can be decoupled from matter and energy is angelistic nonsense. Lewis’ claim that the case for a steady-state economy is discredited because it is “one that largely ignores services and substitutes mass for value”, is to carry confusion to the point of misrepresentation. Evidently realizing that he has veered from the middle of the road, Lewis begins to retreat in the next paragraph. He grants that “the more sophisticated advocates of a steady-state economy” do in fact distinguish quantitative from qualitative growth, and that only the former must at some point be constrained by physical finitude. The latter is free to improve (“grow qualitatively”) within the physical constraint of the former. But he still thinks services belong only to the qualita- tive category (“nonconsumptive forms of economic growth” he calls them), and chides me for not recognizing this, al- though I extensively discussed the question in the very refer- ence he cites. In the following paragraph we get the further concession that services, after all, do require physical maintenance, and the argument then shifts to the possibility of “dematerializa- tion”, which evidently means nothing more than “expanding in value by producing better goods and services more ef%- ciently”, which is nothing other than the “qualitative improve- ment” not only recognized but advocated by the steady-state view. Indeed, the steady-state policy is to redirect the path of progress entirely to qualitative improvement by closing off the alternative path of quantitative expansion. Nor does Lewis seem to recognize that qualitative improvements frequently do not register as growth in measured value. This does not mean that such improvements are not desirable, but that they increase uncounted consumer surplus rather than expenditure and measured value. All good things do not necessarily in- crease economic growth, and all increases in economic growth are not necessarily good things. Lewis believes that economic growth is always to the good and thinks environmentalists are obtuse not to see this. “Whereas moderate environmentalists see some benefit to economic growth (a more prosperous society being able to afford more environmental protection) green stalwarts con- sider this proposition self-cancelling” (p. 3-4). The problem with Lewis’ statement is that it identifies greater prosperity (a state) with economic growth (a process supposedly leading to that state). No one denies that if we were truly richer or more prosperous, all our problems, including environmental protec- tion, would be easier to solve. But the question at issue is: Does economic growth, as currently measured from the exist- ing margin, really make us richer? Might it not be making us poorer by increasing environmental costs faster than produc- tion benefits? If the latter were the case, how would we recognize it? Not by looking at GNP, because it includes the expenditure incurred to protect ourselves against the un- wanted environmental costs, and thus registers as a further increase in economic growth. And Lewis thinks that must make us richer! In sum, Lewis has not refuted the argument for a steady- state economy which he says is the basis of all the radicalisms that the rest of his book is dedicated to criticizing. But that task is not as fundamental to the rest of his book as he thinks, so his failure to accomplish it is really not very damaging to his other criticisms. This is because, contrary to Lewis’ asser- tion, it is just not true that eco-marxists, eco-feminists, eco- anarchists, etc., all begin their analyses by accepting the necessity of the steady-state economy, and found their argu- ments on that premise. My experience is that most of these eco-parasites have never heard of steady-state ecomomics, and even if they have, it does not matter because they do not understand it any better than Lewis does. Herman Daly Encironment Department The W orld Bank W ashington DC 20433 USA Changing Course Changing Course: A Global Business Perspective on Develop- ment and Encironment. Stephan Schmidheiny with the Busi- ness Council for Sustainable Development. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, Boston, MA, 1992, ISBN 0-262- 19318-3. “Changing Course” is a serious attempt of some business leaders to provide a stimulating industrial view on global environmental issues and developments. It is the result of preparations to the 1992 United Nations Conference on Envi- ronment and Development by the Business Council for Sus- tainable Development (BCSD). Fifty business leaders from developing countries and the industrial world contributed. As stated in the preface, “The BCSD speaks not for global business but as a small group of business leaders, by definition representing a small minority”. The text is informative, fluently written, easy to under- stand, and well structured, which is quite an achievement considering the wide scope of the content. The statements made are in the ideological sphere and the arguments for the statements are sometimes superficial. The book stresses the necessity for business to work ac- tively for obtaining sustainable development. The reason for this commitment appears to be based on both the neccessity to halt environmental degradation and to survive as busi- nesses. The writers of the book urge and recommend compa- SSDI 0921-8009(93)E0045-I