We’re in the midst of a landscaping project. It includes truckloads of a substance called “Beauty Bark.” Paying for this material reminded me of the difference between economic growth and economic progress. This is a happy story -- and not only because of our more attractive yard. It demonstrates how ecological improvements flow from better economic coordination.

In the early 1970s I often assigned a text with a most peculiar title, TANSTAAFL by Edwin Dolan. The title is the acronym for There Ain’t No Such thing As A Free Lunch. (I just Googled TANSTAAFL and got 31,900 hits, but many now are in computer science. Economics is contagious.) Here’s the author’s overview: “The task of ecological economics is to figure out how to restructure the economic system so that hidden costs will be brought out into the open, with the ultimate aim that no one who benefits from the use of the environment will be able to escape without paying in full.” This principle has motivated my work.

The TANSTAAFL principle implies that everything depends on everything else. Things of value have a cost -- although not necessarily measured by money. What economists measure best are not the values that matter most.

Conventional economics holds when politicians promise something for nothing; be alert -- someone, somewhere, somehow must pay. Behind every promised free lunch there is a hidden cost. That cost will come due and will ultimately be accounted for. But the rule has important exceptions.

Though it is possible for an individual to get a “free lunch” (as when a company cuts costs by polluting the air), someone ends up paying the cost. Even though there is no individual or private cost, there is a social cost.

Pollution is often highly inefficient, e.g., when it imposes high costs on others. A tax or other program that forces the polluter to internalize this imposition on others would improve efficiency. This would increase social welfare. However, folks (whom economists call rent seekers) may benefit from the inefficiency. Hence, they invest in politicians. That is, the polluter lobbies and gives generous campaign contributions to protect the right to pollute.

An example is the Clean Air Act. The 1970 Clean Air Act required all coal-fired generating plants to meet an emission standard for sulfur dioxide. They could accomplish this in several ways. Most coal in the eastern United States has a high sulfur content. Western coal is cleaner. Predictably, then, coal-burning utilities switched to western coal to comply with the new standards, instead of installing expensive scrubbers.

However, the Clean Air Act was revised in 1977. And eastern coal producers acted. Their amendments required coal plants to meet both an emission standard and a technology standard. Further, eastern coal producers and the eastern-based United Mine Workers added additional provisions fostering the burning of “local” coal. In essence, eastern coal interests penalized the use of cleaner western coal. Thus, we should be alert to the TANSTAAFL rule when politicians make promises.

The idea that there is no free lunch at the societal level applies only when efficiency prevails. But when we find inefficiency, society actually can get a “free lunch” by improving efficiency. Entrepreneurs, be they for-profit, non-profit, or political, are the chefs who create institutions that provide the “free lunch.”

When I was logging 30-plus years ago, 40 percent of each truckload hauled to the mills was waste: odd pieces of wood, sawdust, and mountains of bark. How did the mills dispose of this waste?

All Rocky Mountain valleys with sawmills had “teepee burners.” The waste was transported to them. These facilities were expensive to build, costly to stoke and maintain, and most importantly, they produced unhealthy pollution from smoke and particulates. Few of today’s college students have ever seen one.

With increases in education and income came heightened environmental sensitivity -- and accompanying regulations. Some innovators saw opportunities in this teepee burner waste. Much of it became the “Beauty Bark” used in our landscaping and gardening. What had been an odious waste was transformed into a valuable product.

This case exemplifies economic and ecological progress. While the TANSTAAFL rule is usually true, I suggest we celebrate the entrepreneurial chefs who serve up free lunches. Relish them!