Radical New Economic Theory?

No, it's not a "radical new economic theory".  It's just another way for wealthy governments to assuage some unexplainable guilt that some in the developed world have for living a good life.  It ranks up there with "carbon taxes" and "carbon offsets"--and who's surprised that the theory hinges on "climate breakdown"?

One evening in December, after a long day working from home, Jennifer Drouin, 30, headed out to buy groceries in central Amsterdam. Once inside, she noticed new price tags. The label by the zucchini said they cost a little more than normal: 6¢ extra per kilo for their carbon footprint, 5¢ for the toll the farming takes on the land, and 4¢ to fairly pay workers. “There are all these extra costs to our daily life that normally no one would pay for, or even be aware of,” she says.

The so-called true-price initiative, operating in the store since late 2020, is one of dozens of schemes that Amsterdammers have introduced in recent months as they reassess the impact of the existing economic system. By some accounts, that system, capitalism, has its origins just a mile from the grocery store. In 1602, in a house on a narrow alley, a merchant began selling shares in the nascent Dutch East India Company. In doing so, he paved the way for the creation of the first stock exchange—and the capitalist global economy that has transformed life on earth. “Now I think we’re one of the first cities in a while to start questioning this system,” Drouin says. “Is it actually making us healthy and happy? What do we want? Is it really just economic growth?”

In April 2020, during the first wave of COVID-19, Amsterdam’s city government announced it would recover from the crisis, and avoid future ones, by embracing the theory of “doughnut economics.” Laid out by British economist Kate Raworth in a 2017 book, the theory argues that 20th century economic thinking is not equipped to deal with the 21st century reality of a planet teetering on the edge of climate breakdown. Instead of equating a growing GDP with a successful society, our goal should be to fit all of human life into what Raworth calls the “sweet spot” between the “social foundation,” where everyone has what they need to live a good life, and the “environmental ceiling.” By and large, people in rich countries are living above the environmental ceiling. Those in poorer countries often fall below the social foundation. The space in between: that’s the doughnut.

Only capitalist economies can afford this; only rich countries can afford to care for the environment.  Poor countries and people won't want to pay more and in many cases can't pay more, especially for food.

Perhaps young Ciara should have paid more attention in economics class--or take one if she's never had one.  You can theorize all day, but Adam Smith got it pretty much right back in the 18th Century.

I'm a conservationist, not an environmentalist.  I don't believe we should waste what he have, we should be good stewards of the environment.  I'm also a realist. We'll grow ourselves out of a problem long before we'll tax ourselves out of one.  And let's not kid ourselves; far from being a "radical new economic theory", this is just another tired example of taxing prosperity to pay for leftist extremism.  It's a regressive tax, the only purpose of which is to demonstrate virtue, and which won't pay for or provide what's been promised.