I abandoned this book after a few chapters due to the fact that it didn't make much sense. Initially it promises to describe how, without any effort, the whole economy can - and in fact will - change to become sustainable. In fact, a sustainable economy is actually more efficient and more profitable than the one we have now, it promises.

Already there is a significant problem with this promise. If it's more profitable, and we can put our faith in the market, why isn't it already happening? This is especially pertinent given that this book was written over ten years ago and none of the predictions I read have come to pass.

The book says that it will explain how the market will provide all of these solutions but the two chapters that follow don't explain it at all. Instead they abandon economics altogether in favour of propagating half-truths about engineering and science that seem to contradict the thesis of the book.

At that point I gave up.

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. ( )

The author lays out a compelling case for economic evolution; he argues convincingly that we need to adjust our economic system to include "natural capital", and that our GNP needs to be adjusted to include damage to natural resources in the costs of products. ( )

Natural Capitalism starts with a description of a clean, peaceful city with public transportation, low energy costs and little or no un- or underemployment. At the beginning of the book, this vision strained the bounds of credulity. By the middle of the book, I was describing to friends and family the only optimistic book about the environment I've ever read. And by the end, I was done with conventional debate about the zero-sum game between economic gain and the environment. Why can't we design a tax system that rewards efficiency instead of punishing it? Why can't we support ourselves and our families in a way that doesn't preclude future generations from supporting their families?

This is the sort of breath of fresh air that political debate needs - why can't we create a health care system that doesn't have an interest in keeping us as unhealthy as possible? Why can't we attract human capital from all over the globe that contributes to our prosperity? Why can't the Red Sox win the World Series? Twice? [10/30/07 - or many, many times!?!?]

The key - according to Natural Capitalism - is to fix some of the weird leftovers from previous experiments in economics. Subsidies to destructive industries, disincentives to invest in efficiency and public finance of environmental degradation have all got to go. In their place, take your pick between thousands of successful programs around the world (and even here in the US) including taxes, fees, rebates, markets to trade energy savings for energy consumption, better information, better design, and even letting a free market drive competition. There aren't a lot of examples of good old fashioned regulation, and with good reason - the things that need regulating are growing faster than our ability to write and fund regulations. Instead, Natural Capitalism turns toward encouraging a few basic principles: energy efficiency, reduction in waste in any form (effluent, toxins, CO2, etc.) and not spending down the enormous natural endowment of the planet. The market sorts out the rest.

I hope there's a companion volume in he works. 8 years from the original publication date, are we any closer to this world? ( )