This is definitely a dense read, but it was the kind of book that throughout the time I was reading it, I kept telling people about things I found interesting. I really appreciate the approach to systems that incorporates natural and human capital and environmental considerations. It only frustrates me that this book is 20 years old and so many of our systems haven't changed.

I'm still in the middle of this one and although it's become a little dated (it was written in the mid 1990's), it's still a great way to help readers get the big picture of how capitalism needs to change in order to support sustainability efforts. I am a firm believer in capitalism as a way for us to get out of this mess - innovation and customer demand being two of its strong points. Some think it is too positive - utopian even - but I appreciate the positivity given the increasingly dire nature of the news about the planet's decline these days.

Brilliant, practical, and inspiring.

How they could write so much about valuing natural resources and the services they provide is beyond me, but they did. This book was a slog for me and presented few ideas that were new at the time. Maybe if you were new to green business thinking it would be revolutionary.

Libertarians will love this book.

“We have lived by the assumption that what was good for us would be good for the world. We have been wrong. We must change our lives, so that it will be possible to live by the contrary assumption that what is good for the world will be good for us.” – Wendell Berry.

Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins, and L. Hunter Lovins open the book with this quote, which I agree with. Where Hawken, Lovins, and Lovins and I disagree is the path to getting there.

What is Natural Capitalism? Well, it has a lot to do with Natural Capital. You see, Hawken, Lovins, and Lovins want to correct Marx’s notions that natural resources and ecosystems are raw products which through the lands of labor are turned into commodities which produce wealth. Rather, natural resources and healthy ecosystems are themselves a form of capital – natural capital. They provide services necessary to the production of all wealth and they cannot be replaced.

Because of this, Hawken, Lovins, and Lovins believe that it is in the self-interest of businesses to preserve, conserve, and restore natural capital. They believe we are on the cusp of a revolution that will transform the world as much as the industrial revolution and that revolution is not at all like a revolution envisioned by Marx, but rather a revolution in natural Capital. This is the revolution that takes place as businesses realize the importance of investing in green technologies, the importance of asking for government regulation of the industry, even the importance of socio-economic justice.

Indeed, they tell us, “in a few decades, historians may write a history of our times that goes something like this: Now that the private sector has taken its proper place as the main implementer of sustainable practices, simply because they work better and cost less, the 1990s and 1980s approach of micromanagement by intensive government regulation is only a bad memory” (320).

Forgive me, but this sounds naïve. Does the corporate capital business model really have that much foresight? Is it rational to that extent? Will it ever sacrifice its own short term profit for the long term benefit of humanity? To what extent does this model depend on the good will, the good heart, the good morals and intentions of the world elites? Indeed, perhaps that is why the book is written as a utopic vision to convince the world’s elite who control those businesses that this is exactly the revolution at which they ought to be at the vanguard, in order to reap profits and also assuage guilt.

I say this not to attack green entrepreneurs or small local business owners. I just think its naïve to think that Shell will on its own realize its better to be ecologically friendly (rather than simply appear ecologically friendly). But let’s take a closer look at one of the examples they give for how this process unfolds…

“When the African writer Ken Saro-Wiwa and seven of his colleagues were hanged by the Nigerian military dictatorship after being convicted in a kangaroo court for leading the protests against the environmental degradation in Ogoniland caused by multinational petroleum companies, Shell stations in Germany were burned to the ground, boycotts in Holland slashed sales, and employees in London were chastised by family and friends. Since that time, Shell has begun to reexamine all its racial, economic, and environmental policies.”

Now contrast the vision of change they give above to the statement with which they end the book:

” Natural capitalism is not about fomenting social upheaval. On the contrary, that is the consequence that will surely arise if fundamental social and environmental problems are not responsibly addressed. Natural capitalism is about choices we can make that can start to tip economic and social outcomes in positive directions. And it is already occurring- because it is necessary, possible, and practical” (322).

This is one of the best books of the type that I have ever read. It gives a clear blueprint to how we can save the world from ecological disaster. I think often of sending this book to Congresspeople, legislators and company boards. I am disappointed that more people don't read it and that it isn't mentioned in the news more often.

This book was recommended to me by someone who I thought was intending to poke at my anti-capitalist personality, and so I stubbornly resisted picking it up. I also initially misunderstood the title, thinking it meant that the book was a treatise on how capitalism is "natural" and therefore good.

When I finally gave in and read it, I was impressed. It's basically an appeal to capitalists to consider ways in which ecologically responsible business practices can result in bigger profits, which a good start, and better than nothing.

I chose this book for my reading list this quarter because it is one of the most widely discussed books on the transition from our current unsustainable economic system to a more sustainable system. Natural Capitalism is listed amongst the books on Evergreen’s sustainability webpage, so I thought it was important in my path to understanding the various aspects of sustainability. It was then so unsatisfying then that this book is so significantly flawed. The author’s believe that the transition will be awesome and profitable that, by golly, everyone and every business will want to help out. The author’s maintain a position that the market will drive this transition to a sustainable market without unwanted and unwarranted government intervention.
Their preface states: 'We believe the world stands at the threshold of basic changes in the conditions of business. Companies that ignore the message of natural capitalism do so at their peril....(We) show that the move towards radical resource productivity and natural capitalism is beginning to feel inevitable rather than merely possible.... If at times we lean more to enthusiasm than reportage, it is because we can see the tremendous array of possibilities for healing the most intransigent problems of our time'.
According to the authors, David Brower, the American environmentalist and mountaineer, once proposed a user's manual for those buying an Earth. 'This planet has been delivered in perfect working condition, and cannot be replaced. Please don't adjust the thermostat or the atmosphere'. The author’s do recognize the need for change from the unsustainable course we are on but believe that the answers lie in technology, if we but adopt what the authors call 'Natural Capitalism' - 'the next industrial revolution'. The question is do the author’s really believe in this position or are they cajoling us to act. They call their approach natural capitalism because it's based on the principle that business can be good for the environment. If natural capitalism continues to blossom, so much money and resources will be saved that societies will be able to focus on issues such as housing.
Admittedly this is an informative, visionary and thought provoking book that I would recommend. It is their faith in a technological solution to what I have come to view as a cultural and political problem, that I take issue with. They do have a plan that seems en face, very plausible and hopeful. It seems that they really do believe that the carrot approach will work without needing a stick at all. Natural Capitalism is a assemblage of successful entrepreneurial anecdotes of how more service can be gotten from less materials and less energy. In Natural Capitalism the authors expand the range of anecdotal information, gloss them with science, and extrapolate diminishing dollar costs into the distant future. In this rosy future there will be so much energy saving that oil will scarcely sell for $5 a barrel. To arrive at this sate of affairs they make some assumptions cast with an incredible reach. One example is asking the reader to interpret generalities such as '92% less energy use ' or '100% saving', or the claim that electricity from photo-voltaic devices is of 'higher quality' (p97), or that 'combined cycle gas turbines are not subject to Carnot's Law', or phrases like 'useful work extracted ... to more than 90% of the original fuel energy'? I asked someone more familiar with energy consumption statistics and she scoffed that the author was forgetting the laws of thermodynamics. Since Hawken is a physicist, this seems problematic.
They surmise that is waste was eliminated we would have a raw energy surplus. Those of us that have kept track of our time and then made (or tried to make) adjustments to wast less time, recognize the difficulties in eliminating wast. The technique is simple, recent technological developments are reported which can cut the energy and materials needs by half. Then new ways of doing things can cut the need for that energy by a further half (half of a half equals a quarter), then, since we have cut some inputs to a quarter, other economies follow. This is a very dangerous argument. Here is a quote from page 244:
"Over the next half-century, even if global economy expanded by 6 - 8 fold, the rate of releasing carbon by burning of fossil fuels could simultaneously decrease by anywhere from one third to nine-tenths below current rate. This is because of the multiplicative effect of four kinds of actions. Switching to natural gas and renewable energy, as fast as Shell Oil planners consider likely, would cut by one half to three quarters the fossil-fuel.”
The allure of this argument is clear- we don’t have to change we just have to think smarter and develop more and better technologies. Like Lomborg in The Skeptical Environmentalist they use a process that Daniel Sarewitz criticizes as attempting to “support a view where appropriate action is determined by scientific inquiry.” Sarewitz explores the problems inherent with using science to articulate, define and solve environmental controversies requires scientists to focus on reducing risks from uncertainty. Hawins and the Lovin’s blithely reduce these risks by painting a very rosy future. Interestingly enough, in looking at the book, written nearly a decade ago, I did find the book outdated, particularly with regard to automobile technology.
In viewing this book from another angle, I have another concern. In economics, the theory goes that when you get more from less, you take advantage of the slack, this is know as the rebound effect. Common sense tells me that human greed with take advantage of this rebound effect and capture any possible savings.
The many happy solutions to energy problems did not convince me of their solution paradigm; in fact, I found much of the book redundant. I absolutely appreciate the author’s for their optimism; I hope that corporations, business and consumers drive the revolution for change. I allow for the possibility that change can come from a utopian and peaceful adoption of appropriate technologies. I can understand that many students of environmentalism would hold this book with reverence and hope. Perhaps it is too cynical of me but I maintain that the revolution for a sustainable planet will only occur when we reduce what we want to what we need. And even then, it might be too little-too late.

I made it about 3/4 of the way through this book. It's one of those books that once you get the gist of it, you're not necessarily motivated to read all the way to the end. I wish someone could lead this country through the next industrial revolution using this book for the recipe. Then I would feel proud to be a part of American culture.

When I read Natural Capitalism I was quite enamored of it. However, since reading other material I have less enthusiasm for this book and the approach they generally describe (I've seen a documentary with the authors and read a number of news articles both by and about them). In order to work, many of their "solutions" require top down command and control economic framework which generally has a very poor record for using resources wisely.

Additionally, many of their predictions and/or time lines for the viability of new environmentally friendly technology have been flat out wrong or way off. I suspect that this is because they, too often don't take into account all economic costs. So for example when describing a new way of making a much more environmentally friendly car, they only look at some of the factors involved in making it and have no idea how their end goals affect all the hundreds or thousands of related industries will be effected. In fact however, the only way all costs can be accounted for is in open markets where prices are not set or manipulated by government intervention - something the authors often fail to realize. To quote one of their obvious errors they state "Markets know everything about prices and nothing about costs." This makes no sense. Prices ARE costs! The price I set is the cost you pay - it all depends on the vantage point. So to translate their quote into the real world they're saying, "Markets know everything about prices and nothing about [other people's:] prices." Now doesn't that sound a bit weird?

So while they're on the right track with the basic idea that waste is bad for business and bad for the environment (and bring up lots of fun examples to show how some companies have revolutionized their way of doing business) this fundamental lack of economic understanding really brings this book down in my view. Many economists and even journalists and active environmentalists have criticized their work for just this reason.

Only got to page 291 because someone else had a hold it. Thinking of leaving a note in it for the next reader because I enjoyed it so much. Who knew there were so many alternative options available? We should be utilizing all of the examples mentioned.

Solid book and could be a textbook or at least part of a syllabus.