Thứ Năm, 17 tháng 3, 2016

Get together, or else! #howTrumpbringsthecountrytogether

Get together, or else!

by digby

"Are country: will fail as one our country is divided and will remain that way"






















That's from a series of pictures taken by a Buzzfeed reporter at a Trump rally where people were asked to write their reasons for supporting Trump on that big pad.

This one is a bit incoherent but it reflects something I hear all the time about Trump (and from Trump.) They think Trump is the only candidate who can "bring people together."

In his case it seems as if they thinks he will force everyone to do what they want and so we'll be together but the sentiment is not one confined to the right. Recall in 2008 that a whole lot of liberals thought Obama would bring the whole country together.

I was skeptical about that then and am completely convinced now that this is a fantasy. Right now the country is bitterly divided on some fundamental issues and it's just going to have to be fought out and argued for the time being. We may evolve back into some kind of cultural consensus --- that's what we hope will happen as these more tolerant millennials get older and take over.  So maybe there will be a time in the future when the arguments aren't so contentious. But right now, this is what we have --- a country filled with people who disagree strongly about some very important stuff.

The Trump voters are especially foolish since Trump is actually polarizing his own party is some ways that may fracture it. But even if he weren't their belief that any conservative Republican, much less a neo-fascist like Trump, can unite the country is as much a pipe dream just as the idea that the first black president was magically going to "change Washington." It doesn't work that way.

.

Cruz between a rock and a hard place

Cruz between a rock and a hard place

by digby




















If he does this his base will be very, very unhappy. If he doesn't it's going to be even harder for him to consolidate support to fight Trump. This is the the GOP's dilemma in a nutshell. Their base, whether the racist xenophobes or hardcore movement conservatives (or both!) demand total fealty. Any deviation is treason.

But the institutionalists have some clout among themselves:
Senior Senate Republicans are calling on Sen. Ted Cruz to rebuild his strained relationships with his colleagues and apologize to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell before the party establishment considers consolidating behind his presidential bid.

Cruz has increasingly called for Republicans to unify behind his candidacy in order to take down front-runner Donald Trump. But in interviews Tuesday with CNN, it's clear Cruz's fellow GOP senators are not willing to do that, at least not yet.

Republican senators said that Cruz must return to Capitol Hill and make the case directly to his colleagues to help ease long-festering tensions. And a large number of Republicans said the fence-mending starts with this: Apologizing to McConnell for calling him a liar last year on the floor of the Senate.

That message -- to smooth things over with Senate Republicans in a private session -- was personally delivered by fellow Texan and McConnell's chief deputy, Sen. John Cornyn, who spoke with Cruz by phone after the candidate won their home state's primary earlier this month.

"I actually made that suggestion to him when I talked to him last," Cornyn said when asked if he thought Cruz should apologize for his McConnell remarks. (A spokesman later said that Cornyn did not seek an apology but urged Cruz to speak directly to the Senate GOP Conference.)

Others had similar suggestions for Cruz.

"I think he's got some bridges to build here," said Sen. John Thune, the No. 3 Senate Republican. "I think it would be helpful obviously for him -- if he thinks he is going to be the guy or wants to be the guy -- to come back here to mend some of those fences that he tore down when he was here."

"That was not proper as you know, and I raised hell about it," Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the longest-serving Senate Republican, said of Cruz's criticism of McConnell. "I'm a great believer of repentance and changing, and I think there's a gradual change there that I'm noticing, which is good."

Hatch also had this to say of Cruz: "It's always helpful when you admit you're wrong."

Right. But if Cruz is seen genuflecting to the Senate, his supporters could easily bolt to Trump. Apparently, he knows on which side his bread is buttered.

Jeff Roe, Cruz's campaign manager, signaled that the Texas senator was unlikely to begin wooing his colleagues.

"It's not like we have some phone tree of U.S. senators to endorse," Roe said. "We never built our campaign that way."

Cruz is all-in with the conservative movement whether he wins the nomination or not. And in the event he isn't, once the smoke has cleared, he's the undisputed leader of that movement --- and maybe the GOP. Oh my God.

Update: Lindsey Graham has endorsed Cruz.  This isn't a huge surprise. He has hinted that he might do this for a while because he thinks stopping Trumps is more important and he is obviously prepared to lose with Cruz in the fall rather than take a chance on Trump. It will be interesting to see if anyone follows him.

But either way, Cruz isn't going to apologize to a bunch of senators for being a conservative firebrand. I'm sure he'll take their support but he's not going to beg for it.


.

Thanks Obama

Thanks Obama

by digby



















And I mean that ...

On Wednesday afternoon, Obama held a reception at the White House to honor Women's History Month. His remarks on the same day Michelle Obama launched a new Let Girls Learn initiative in Austin at the South by Southwest conference earlier that morning.

President Obama discussed important topics including equal pay, education for women around the world and the online harassment women face far too often on the Internet.

"One thing I’ve been thinking about this past week is the unique challenges women face in the virtual world," Obama told the crowd, made up of historic women like Cecile Richards, Nancy Pelosi and the first female NFL coach Jennifer Welter. "Last Friday, I was at South by Southwest, where the epidemic of online harassment was a topic of discussion. We know that women gamers face harassment and stalking and threats of violence from other players. When they speak out about their experiences, they’re attacked on Twitter and other social media outlets, even threatened in their homes."

The president highlighted how many women are speaking out against this online harassment every day -- and why their activism is so important:
What’s brought these issues to light is that there are a lot of women out there, especially young women, who are speaking out bravely about their experiences, even when they know they’ll be attacked for it -- from feminist bloggers who refuse to be silenced, to women sports reporters who are opening up about the extreme safety precautions they need to take when traveling for work.  Every day, women of all ages and all backgrounds and walks of life are speaking out.  And by telling their stories, by you telling your stories, women are lifting others out of the shadows and raising our collective consciousness about a problem that affects all of us.
He added that the Internet is a public space "where women have every right to exist freely and safely" without fear of harassment or violent responses of any kind.

President Obama has never been a terrible sexist of the kind we see all the time on the internet and in our own lives, but like many men he has been guilty from time to time of being somewhat paternalistic and a little bit clueless about women's issues. This is a primitive, intractable problem that we see every day in small ways and is magnified whenever a woman challenges the normal power structure as Clinton does now. Most people don't even know it's there and when its pointed out it's evidently very painful and unpleasant for them to hear it because they get extremely angry.

I would guess President Obama has probably been impacted by seeing the world a bit through his wife's eyes, a public woman who has had to endure some outrageously disgusting racist and sexist abuse from his political enemies. And he has two daughters who are growing up very fast and he's naturally seeing the world in a different light.Whatever it is, it's a good thing for a president to acknowledge and speak out against and I thank him for it.

Women have a number of disadvantages in this world but being on the internet often makes you feel like you'd rather not be in it at all.

.

Trump's only original campaign slogan

Trump's only original campaign slogan


by digby















I wrote about Trump's love affair with the police today for Salon:

Donald Trump’s xenophobia, nativism and nationalism are well established by now. His rantings about Latino immigrants and Muslims and “China and Japan” have been discussed at great lengths on every television network and in the pages of all the major newspapers for months. When he says, “We’re going to make America great again,” we know he means to restore total American global dominance and white American privilege.
We tend to think of Trump’s authoritarianism in terms of his promises to “get rid of the bad people so fast your head will spin,” leaving the impression that he isn’t concerned with such impediments as due process. And he has made it clear that he plans to do everything in his power to ensure that torture and wanton extrajudicial killings are part of the program as a deterrent and as a punishment. There is no doubt that Trump unabashedly sees himself as a “strongman” leader.
But the violence that finally spilled over last week focused attention, at least briefly, on another aspect of his appeal that hasn’t received quite the same amount of coverage, even though it’s been a fundamental part of his appeal from the very beginning: his call for “law and order,” and the thinly veiled racism that phrase evokes.
Trump has pretty much stolen all of his slogans from previous presidential races. As everyone knows, his ubiquitous “Make America Great Again” is lifted directly from Ronald Reagan’s 1980 campaign:
His reference to the “silent majority” is from a famous speech by Richard Nixon. But his common use of “law and order” in the context he usually says it also brings to mind another candidate from the same era, Alabama Gov. George Wallace, when he ran for the White House in 1968.
Wallace’s use of the phrase was not explicitly racist in that it also applied to the dirty hippies who were protesting the Vietnam war at the time. But it was quite clearly aimed at unhappy whites who were angry about civil rights and were disturbed by the urban unrest of the period. It was a tumultuous time and both Wallace and Nixon exploited the unease of the “silent majority” with a coded call for a return to “law and order” — meaning a crackdown by the authorities.
The Vietnam war ended, Nixon resigned, and the world moved on from the radical politics and counter-cultures of the period. But the racialized dogwhistle of “law and order” continued for a couple of decades as the crime rate escalated during the ’80s and ’90s, with the famous Willie Horton ad  being a prime example of its exploitation. It had, however, pretty much died out as a presidential campaign issue until Donald Trump decided to run as an authoritarian strong man using the slogans of his youth.
From the beginning of the campaign, he’s faced protesters at his rallies, many of them African Americans from the Black Lives Matter movement. His typical reaction ranges from moderately tolerant to massively irritated. As everyone has seen, he’s made threats, he’s offered to pay the legal fees of anyone who hits them, he’s lied about the protesters initiating violence, and he’s coined a catchphrase of his own for the occasion: “Get ’em out.”
When he’s been asked about the underlying issue to which the Black Lives Matter movement is trying to draw attention, Trump’s sympathy is clearly with the police, not the unarmed victims for whom the movement is advocating.
For instance, NBC’s Chuck Todd asked about Black Lives Matter and the police shooting of Walter Scott in Charleston, S.C., last August. Todd wondered if he thought this was a crisis, and Trump bizarrely replied that it was a “double crisis,” because horrible mistakes are made, “but at the same time we have to give the power back to the police because crime is rampant and I’m a big person that believes in very… we need police and we need protection.”
The conversation continued:
Trump: Look, I look at some of the cities you look at Baltimore, you look at certain areas of this country, Chicago, certain areas, they need strong police protection and those police can do the job but their jobs are being taken away from them. There is turmoil in our country
Chuck Todd: Can you understand why African Americans don’t trust the police?
Trump: Well I can see it when I see what’s going on but at the same time we have to give power back to the police because we have to have law and order.
He commonly meets with police on the campaign trail and reassures them that under his leadership they will be given a free hand. He will say, “You’re not recognized properly, you will be recognized properly if I win. Remember that. We know what you’re going through. You speak a little bit rough to somebody and all of sudden you end up fighting for your job.”
Nobody’s gonna mess with these guys, nobody. NOBODY! But the big thing is we have to let’ em do their job, we have to let ’em do their job. But nobody’s messin’ with them.
I was unable to find any polling among police officers about their feelings for Trump, but at least one police union in New England endorsed him for president. When he accepted the endorsement, he pledged,
Anybody killing a policeman, a policewoman, a police officer, anybody killing a police officer: Death penalty is going to happen, okay? The police and the law enforcement in this country — I will never ever let them down, just remember that.
Needless to say, the president does not have the power to “make the death penalty happen,” but Trump doesn’t see many limits to the office. The police certainly know where his sympathies lie.
The media haven’t pressed Trump very much on this topic, but there was a question in the February 6 debate that should have raised some eyebrows. (With Trump there’s always so much outrageousness it’s hard to keep up.) He was asked how he would bridge the divide between police and the community:
Well, there is a divide, but I have to say that the police are absolutely mistreated and misunderstood, and if there is an incident, whether it’s an incident done purposely—which is a horror, and you should really take very strong action—or if it is a mistake, it’s on your news casts all night, all week, all month, and it never ends.
The police in this country have done an unbelievable job of keeping law and order, and they’re afraid for their jobs, they’re afraid of the mistreatment they get, and I’m telling you that not only, me speaking, minorities all over the country, they respect the police of this country and we have to give them more respect.
They can’t act. They can’t act. They’re afraid for losing their pension, their job. They don’t know what to do. And I deal with them all the time. We have to give great respect, far greater than we are right now, to our really fantastic police.
Well, they do [see police brutality]. And, you know, they sue. Everybody sues, right? They see excessive — I mean, they go out, they sue. We have so much litigation — I see the courts, I see what they’re doing. They sue, and you know what? We don’t want excessive force. But at what point — you know, either you’re going to have a police force that can do its job…
The police in the country have powerful unions and some of the strongest job protections of any profession in the county. The idea that they are petrified of being fired for simply doing their jobs is preposterous. Trump is clearly alluding to the discredited “Ferguson Effect,” which numerous studies have found simply does not exist. In fact, for all of Trump’s sycophancy toward the police, his comments are insulting to the many cops who are professional and do their jobs with integrity every day.
Trump has no intention of bridging any divides. He is an old-school “law and order” man. And he’s always been a guy who loves a man in uniform (even though he’s never been in one himself, ever since he left his expensive military prep school). His views on civil liberties and crime have never been more clearly expressed than when he took out that full page ad in the New York Times to demand that the Central Park Five be given the death penalty, even before they’d been convicted of the crime, for which they were later exonerated.
It was then that Trump wrote what might as well be his first original campaign slogan: CIVIL LIBERTIES END WHEN AN ATTACK ON OUR SAFETY BEGINS!

It turns out that a lot of the supposedly faithful have been fibbing

It turns out that a lot of the supposedly faithful have been fibbing

by digby















For decades now, we've all been told that America is the most religious nation on earth and the pious super-majority of Real Americans have very deep moral values we must all respect and, in many cases, adhere to as part of our pluralistic democracy. Some of us have been skeptical of these folks. I've always thought that some of these super religious evangelical types might just be fibbin' a little bit about their church going righteousness. Something just didn't track with my experience in Real America.

Thanks to Donald Trump we're finally seeing some proof. This is William Saletan in Slate:

I’ve been coming to this conference, the Faith Angle Forum, for years. I’ve never seen anything like this mood. These people—evangelicals, Bible-believing reporters, conservative media stars—detest Trump. They feel him tightening his grip on their people and their party. The moderates already feel lost. David Brooks, the New York Times columnist who has been preaching compromise to hardline Republicans, is here. He laments at one point, “I’m representing a political ideology that’s dead.” The Christians, meanwhile, sense that they’re in a battle for souls, and they’re losing.

Three weeks ago, when Rubio was rising in the polls, a pro-Rubio super PAC likened the young senator’s battle against Trump to the struggle between Harry Potter and Lord Voldemort. The analogy has proved apt, but not in the way Rubio’s supporters intended. Everyone at the Faith Angle Forum is thinking about you-know-who, even when they don’t say his name. At breakfast, an attendee explains to me why Hillary Clinton lavished excessive praise on Nancy Reagan: because in the current context—meaningful glance—people are looking back at the Reagans with nostalgia. At lunch, Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard confesses that his book on Jack Kemp, the Republican presidential candidate who tried to broaden conservatism by using the free market to solve the problems of minorities, isn’t selling so well in the present climate.

Most of the people who come to Faith Angle are theologically or politically conservative. But they’re not authoritarian. In Monday’s opening presentation, Jamie Smith, a philosopher at Calvin College, dismisses simplistic religion by observing, “As soon as you have cable, fundamentalism is dead.” Michael Cromartie, the conference organizer, punctures sectarianism with a joke: “The problem with theocracy is, everybody wants to be Theo.”

These people oppose Trump for many reasons. They condemn his viciousness. They scorn his arrogance. They reject his “nativism, religious prejudice and misogyny.” In side conversations, one conservative journalist says Trump is a menace to the First Amendment, and another excoriates Trump’s “proto-fascism.” During the conference, the Deseret News—whose editor, Paul Edwards, is a regular at Faith Angle—publishes an editorial denouncing Trump’s “hate-filled diatribes against Muslims and undocumented immigrants.” The editorial reminds Mormons that “incitement to mob violence” once targeted and killed their own leaders.

Many of the attendees and organizers are evangelical. For them, Trump’s support among self-identified evangelicals is an embarrassment and a puzzle. Smith suggests that many of these voters are only “nominal evangelicals.” They say they’re evangelical because in South Carolina and similar states, that’s what you’re supposed to say. But they don’t live a Christian life or even go to church. According to Cromartie, Trump’s support among putative evangelicals plummets when the sample is narrowed to those who attend church at least once a week.

It sounds as though Smith and Cromartie are just making excuses. But they go further. Smith calls out the “straight-up xenophobia” among Trump’s supporters. “Their religious identity is a stalking horse or code for something else,” he argues. Evangelicalism, Smith suggests, can be used as a fig leaf to “cover your American nationalism.” He accepts pastoral responsibility to confront the underlying prejudice, through “theological correction within the Christian community.”

One thing you’ll learn from a conference like this one, if you didn’t know it already, is that there are thoughtful, responsible people in evangelical circles and in the right-wing media world. These people aren’t yahoos. They don’t even hang out with yahoos. But that’s part of the problem: How can they reach the yahoos when they don’t know them? Smith pokes fun at secular liberals who have no contact with devout Christians, but he seems totally unfamiliar with Trump’s evangelicals. In a side conversation afterward, a conservative writer makes a similar confession: She interviews people at churches, but Trump’s people don’t go to church, so she doesn’t meet them. Liberals, it turns out, aren’t the only elites who are out of touch with today’s angry white voters.

These are sincere people and I'm sure this comes as a shock to them. But these folks were happy to use the illusion of big numbers to force the secular folks to accept their edicts. And now they find that half of their own alleged believers are actually phonies and yahoos? Well, some of us could have told them that a long time ago. It's long been evident in the boorish way they bully people and the very un-Christian way they look down upon vulnerable people and those who don't look like them.

People like this:




.


Graveyard of Atlantic exploration? by @BloggersRUs

Graveyard of Atlantic drilling?

by Tom Sullivan


Photo by Chad Teer via Creative Commons

Lost amidst the primary coverage Tuesday was the announcement that the Obama administration is shelving plans to open the Atlantic coast to offshore drilling:

The moves come amid declining industry investment in new exploration and production activities. The price of oil has fallen by about 70% since late 2014, making new investment less attractive. However, the industry continues to seek long-term investment opportunities under the assumption that oil prices will recover.

Offshore drilling in the Atlantic had drawn vigorous support from the American Petroleum Institute, which represents companies in the industry, saying it would have bolstered jobs, tax revenue and economic development.

“The decision appeases extremists," API CEO Jack Gerard said in a statement. “This is not how you harness America’s economic and diplomatic potential."
Or line our pockets at the future's expense, he failed to add.

Only a year ago, governors from Virginia to Georgia had welcomed the prospects of offshore drilling creating jobs and adding to state revenues. But besides oil prices at hovering at their lowest in years, public reaction has been negative. The Interior Department said it had received over a million comments, with local residents fearing "the transformation of the quiet Outer Banks into bustling oil towns":
The Atlantic Coast States’ interest in pursuing drilling off their shores is relatively recent, as is the legal authority to do that work. While offshore drilling has been an integral part of the coastal economy of the Gulf of Mexico since the 1940s, lawmakers from both parties in the Atlantic Coast States resisted the push by oil companies to explore Atlantic waters, supporting a longstanding legal moratorium on Pacific and Atlantic coastal drilling. That calculus changed after a 2006 law, written by former Senator Mary L. Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana, which for the first time required oil companies to pay a portion of offshore drilling royalties directly to nearby Gulf Coast states.
But not directly to state residents, as they do in Alaska. The revised plan released this week "could still open new parts of the Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea, and Cook Inlet, off the coast of Alaska."

For all the boosterism from the oil industry and the jobs talk among coastal governors, the chances are in the end the jobs would go to skilled workers moving up from the Gulf, the energy would go elsewhere, and the locals would get the dregs. Same as it ever was.

Thứ Hai, 14 tháng 3, 2016

Economist Wins Tyler Prize for Lifetime of Work Illuminating Connections between Poverty, Sustainable Development and Environmental Health

43rd Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement honors Sir Partha Dasgupta’s contribution to United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, Pope Francis’ encyclical on the environment


Los Angeles, CA (March 14, 2016) – The Executive Committee of The Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement today announced the selection of Sir Partha S. Dasgupta, PhD, as the 2016 Tyler Prize Laureate. He is recognized for developing economic theory and tools to measure the relationships between human and environmental well-being, poverty, population, economic growth and the state of natural resources. Dasgupta is the Frank Ramsey Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Cambridge.

“Sir Partha Dasgupta’s contributions to economics have driven fundamental and ongoing changes in the international conversation about sustainable and just development, and use of natural resources,” said Tyler Prize Executive Committee Chair Julia Marton-Lefèvre, the Edward P. Bass Distinguished Visiting Environmental Scholar at Yale University.

“From co-chairing the committee that advised Pope Francis on the scientific basis of climate change to helping shape the Sustainable Development Goals, Sir Partha’s work has ensured that we keep in mind both people and the way we use our natural resources to benefit present and future generations,” added Marton-Lefèvre.
                                                                         
Dasgupta’s work challenges the conventional thinking on how nations measure their well-being and places an emphasis on population and environmental sustainability.

“We have long measured the progress of nations in terms of what they produce and consume as expressed in the gross domestic product (GDP),” said Dasgupta. “We need to be working with an entirely different measure. GDP doesn’t tell us if we are growing in a way that benefits all in society, including future people; it ignores factors like inequity and whether we are using our natural resources in a way that can also benefit future generations.”

Since its inception in 1973 as one of the world’s first international environmental awards, the Tyler Prize has been the premier award for environmental science, environmental health and energy.

“Sir Partha’s work to create a framework for sustainable development and his commitment to addressing poverty and the environment have made him unsurpassed among environmental economists in the world,” said Simon Levin, the 2014 Tyler Prize Laureate.      

As the winner of the Tyler Prize, Dasgupta will receive a $200,000 cash prize and a gold medallion and join the ranks of Laureates that include Edward O. Wilson, Jane Goodall, Jared Diamond, Paul and Anne Ehrlich, M.S. Swaminathan, Thomas Lovejoy, Jane Lubchenco and Madhav Gadgil. A full list of past winners is available at www.tylerprize.usc.edu/pastlaureates.html. The Prize, awarded by the international Tyler Prize Executive Committee with the administrative support of the University of Southern California, honors exceptional foresight and dedication in the environmental sciences and policy—qualities that mirror the prescience of the Prize’s founders, John and Alice Tyler, who established it while the environmental debate was still in its infancy.

Chasing Questions in Economics: From the Streets of Calcutta to the Vatican

“I didn’t have a big vision or an agenda when I started my career,” says Dasgupta. “This has been a 40-year chase in which I started with narrow problems and then found that I needed to understand them in a larger context.”

For Dasgupta, one part of this chase began while walking the streets of Calcutta to see his parents. “I saw women begging and some had children with them. It was part of life,” explained Dasgupta. “On one occasion I saw a baby about a year old lying next to her mother with flies on her face. It was a moving sight, but I began wondering why she wasn’t swatting the flies away.”

Thinking about how this girl was using—or not using—very limited energy led Dasgupta to explore broader questions on the relationship between nutrition and health and what they meant for human productivity. These interests expanded quickly to the use of and value placed on natural resources, population, and sustainability.

Forty years later, Dasgupta is recognized as a leading global expert for his work studying economic and environmental issues and incorporating other disciplines. Notably, Dasgupta co-chaired the joint report for the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences—entitled Climate Change and The Common Good—which served as the scientific basis for Pope Francis’ call to action on climate change, the encyclical on the environment (Laudato si').

Rethinking a Nation’s Ledger: Challenging Our Understanding of Wealth and Economic Growth

Dasgupta’s work across economic questions led him to recognize that a more comprehensive and complex measure of national and economic well-being is necessary to help governments craft better economic and development policies.

“Judging the wealth and health of countries using GDP captures just a moment in time and not where the country is headed. It’s like judging the current and future prospects of a household by only noting its annual expenditure on goods and services and not enquiring whether that expenditure was drawing down the household wealth,” explained Dasgupta.

Instead, Dasgupta and colleagues advocate that nations should measure their “inclusive wealth,” which includes not only the value of a country’s infrastructure and tools for production—such as roads, buildings and factories—and education and health of its citizens (human capital), but also the value of natural capital (environmental health, ecosystems, sub-soil resources). Inclusive wealth measures a nation’s potential productivity.

Dasgupta and his colleague Karl-Goran Maler showed that future generations will have a higher quality of life if an economy’s inclusive wealth grows at a faster rate than its population. “It’s no good talking about sustainable development without moving to a system that incorporates inclusive wealth,” said Dasgupta.

Dasgupta serves as the Scientific Advisor to the Inclusive Wealth Project, a UN-sponsored initiative that seeks to measure the wealth and long-term sustainability of countries. This approach, he argues, must be put to work in global discussions around sustainability, including the recently agreed upon UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).         

“We can’t trick ourselves into thinking that reaching the SDGs benchmarks—such as no poverty or no hunger—is success alone. We have to reach them through smart development policies or that success will be fleeting,” said Dasgupta. “We’ll only know if we’ve done that by asking whether the development policies that will be adopted to meet the SDGs will raise inclusive wealth at a faster pace than the population grows.”

Engaging Diverse Perspectives to Answer Big Questions: From Environmental Stewardship to Population

Over the course of Dasgupta’s career, he has collaborated with experts from many other disciplines, including ecologists, epidemiologists and anthropologists. While Chair of the Board of the Beijer Institute, Dasgupta and colleagues brought together economists and ecologists from around the world to address problems of environmental stewardship and helping the world’s most disadvantaged people.

“Sir Partha had the intellectual leadership to help bring together partners that had never worked together in this way,” said Levin.

In 2013, Dasgupta chaired a diverse expert committee for India’s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, which constructed a framework for measuring India’s national well-being that incorporates not only economic output, but also the health and value of environmental and natural resources.

“Doing economics is like peeling an onion. ‘Why’ is a persistent question,” said Dasgupta. “The problem, as well as the attraction, for me has always been that at each stage I discovered that I needed other disciplines to help me answer the questions.”

Dasgupta’s efforts to engage diverse perspectives extend to regional views as well. He co-founded the South Asian Network for Development and Environmental Economics (SANDEE) to elevate the work of scholars from developing countries, and launched the journal Environment and Development Economics, which publishes research on poverty and environmental resources by scholars in poor countries.

“In the developed world the environment is often thought of as an amenity—is the beach polluted or is the national park a place I want to go on vacation—but most of humanity does not enjoy the environment solely as an amenity,” explained Dasgupta. “People in poorer countries understand this complexity, but their voices aren’t heard enough.”