Thanks ... these characters have been doing food and population for a long time and I believe are well regarded.
The problem I have with the formula ... I = P x A x T ... is that the result depends on the values of these variables and what we are attempting to achieve. Further the goal is not to minimize environmental impact (I) but to get the right balance between I and quality of life
I argue that the goal of economic activity is better quality of life for people. This might be expressed as P x A ... except that it must also take into account the distribution of affluence in the population and it doesn't take into account the ways QoL can be improved by activities that are not correlated with affluence (A) like those who get pleasure from doing creative things (artists, musicians, etc)
And technology (T) may add to environmental damage or may reduce environmental damage
I like the numbers associated with double entry accounting because a transaction my improve performance or detract from performance depending on the debits or the credits of the transaction. In the end there is a netting out to determine the profit ... but the pluses and the minuses are kept apart in each transaction.
Some people may like these simple equations ... but in the main, they deliver the wrong answer unless a lot more information is put into each of the elements.
Again thanks for sending ... it makes me think
TrueValueMetrics ... Meaningful Metrics for a Smart Society
Multi Dimension Impact Accounting
twitter: @truevaluemetric @peterbnyc
mobile: 212 744 6469 landline 570 431 4385
The text being discussed is available at