Question
Asked 28th Sep, 2022
  • Independent QLC researcher

Can you see the similarities and differences between Pollution production markets, Pollution reduction markets, and Pollution management markets?

In a world of environmentally dirty markets, how we treat the pollution problem determines the nature of each market and its structure, which raises the question: Can you see the similarities and differences between Pollution production markets, Pollution reduction markets, and Pollution management markets?
Think about it, what do you think?

Most recent answer

25th Oct, 2022
Lucio Muñoz
Independent QLC researcher
Sharing here an article just published that some of you may find interesting in terms of foods for thoughts
Sustainability thoughts 140: How can the consequences of the 2012 green market paradigm shift avoidance move that led to the world of dwarf green markets of today be highlighted, including the green Marxism threat?

All Answers (6)

29th Sep, 2022
Hans-Georg Petersen
Universität Potsdam
Environmental pollution is generally associated with the production or consumption of private and public goods (and services); the former are offered via markets, the latter usually by the state. The markets you mentioned are not referred to as such in environmental economics and do not seem to make sense to me either. Who intentionally produces environmental pollution (unless he is a criminal and deliberately wants to harm others). However, environmental pollution, which is also referred to as "public bad", ensures that the characteristics of goods are changed, so that in future there will be less or no environmental pollution in production and consumption - but the existing goods and service markets in particular will usually ensure this when environmental pollution is internalized through taxes and levies. Developing new terms may make sense here and there, but it should not cover up the actual problem and, above all, should not cause confusion among the students.
29th Sep, 2022
Lucio Muñoz
Independent QLC researcher
Hans, good day.
From inside the box, you can not see what I see, remember Thomas Kuhns remark that when there is paradigm change in the winds or soon after it happens those inside the box can not see it....
You need new terminology to show easily the short comings of the old knowledge base and point the way forward....
For starters
a) the traditional market of Adam Smith IS A POLLUTION PRODUCTION MARKET IN REALITY, but he assumed environmental externality neutrality.to pass it as a perfect market....
b) Green markets, which where avoided in 2012, are pollution reduction markets cleared by green market prices,,,,.here perfect green market thinking rules
c) The markets you described there with taxes and levies ARE ENVIRONMENTAL EXTERNALITY MANAGEMENT MARKETS or environmental pollution management markets, which I call dwarf green markets.....Here dwarf green market thinking rules....
Do you know what the differences between green markets and dwarf green markets in terms of market structure and working are?
Respectfully yours;
Lucio
1st Oct, 2022
Hans-Georg Petersen
Universität Potsdam
Many thanks for the answer. I wish you continued success in innovating new terms, which are really invigorating for discussions! But you should take a closer look at the PFRA given under "Grants and awards" on the Internet; see the contributions to the following RG discussion from 2019:
1st Oct, 2022
Lucio Muñoz
Independent QLC researcher
Dear Hans,, thank you for commenting.
Putting together and sharing new ideas to move status quo thinking in the direction of the Thomas Kuhn's evolution loop is my personal commitment as you can see in my website True Sustainability https://truesustainability.com/THISPAGE.htm
Wish you a nice day.
Lucio
4th Oct, 2022
Lucio Muñoz
Independent QLC researcher
Hans, good day. Your last comment not directly related to the question but probably inspired by my line of research and thinking that you have seen came to mind today when I came across a call for a climate change paper that is peer reviewed, but goes against climate change consensus in a clear cut manner made by respected climate change scientists. .
Scientists urge top publisher to withdraw faulty climate study
When the status quo has the tools for strong blow back as it should be expected there will be strong blow back, right or wrong, usually writing contradicting or invalidating articles or comments or as in this case a direct call to withdraw the published paper.
When the status quo is in paradigm shift mode then there is a paradigm shift induced knowledge gap, which makes blow back behavior a more difficult task as consistent with Thomas Kuhn’s ideas the status quo has difficulties seeing outside the box and I have pointed out in my papers that the knowledge base of the status quo paradigm is left behind when in paradigm shift mode.
I think now that your last comment was a message to me to be careful with what I wish with my outside the box thinking, which I respect. I have been trying to be very careful.
Let’s leave it here to stop moving away from the core of the question at hand here about these three different types of markets.
Respectfully yours;
Lucio
25th Oct, 2022
Lucio Muñoz
Independent QLC researcher
Sharing here an article just published that some of you may find interesting in terms of foods for thoughts
Sustainability thoughts 140: How can the consequences of the 2012 green market paradigm shift avoidance move that led to the world of dwarf green markets of today be highlighted, including the green Marxism threat?

Similar questions and discussions

Has the SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) coronavirus pandemic potentially increased to accelerate pro-climate transformation processes in the economy?
Discussion
5 replies
  • Dariusz ProkopowiczDariusz Prokopowicz
Did the SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) coronavirus pandemic potentially increase opportunities to accelerate processes of pro-climate and pro-environmental transformation of the economy, but unfortunately these opportunities were not taken advantage of?
During the 1st wave of the SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) coronavirus pandemic in March 2020, the stock markets crashed. Energy and industrial commodities fell sharply on the commodity exchanges. A stock market crash also occurred on the stock markets. The main factor in the panic on the capital markets was the declaration of a global coronavirus epidemic, or pandemic state, by the World Health Organisation on 8 March 2020. This new term 'pandemic' itself created fear and uncertainty in the context of financial markets and economic processes. During the SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) coronavirus pandemic, there were also disruptions to international supply and supply logistics chains, government imposed quarantines and lockdowns imposed on selected sectors of the economy which increased the scale of the 2020 recession. As a result of these mainly interventionist actions by central institutions, a deep economic crisis emerged in 2020, the economy declined in many sectors of the economy, and economic process activity declined. The result of the decline in economic activity was a decrease in demand for raw materials, including energy raw materials. Due to the increase in remote working by employees of many companies from home, the use of cars, especially combustion cars, decreased. As a result, air quality and the state of the environment noticeably improved in 2020. In addition, opportunities have arisen to accelerate pro-climate transformation processes in the economy. Unfortunately, in many countries these opportunities have not been seized. For example, in the country where I operate during the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus pandemic (Covid-19), the government used printed money to provide financial public assistance to companies and enterprises operating in a wide variety of industries and sectors, not just those in lockdowns, on a historically record scale. Many companies and enterprises that were in good financial standing also benefited from these programmes of non-refundable financial subsidies, employee wage subsidies, tax relief, deferrals of contributions to the social security system and so on. The scale of the granted non-refundable public aid realised on the basis of printed money introduced extra-budgetarily by government funds created especially for this purpose was so large that inflation began to rise in Poland almost from the beginning of 2021. Citizens invested the extra, free money in shares and flats, which caused an increase in the prices of these assets. On the other hand, opportunities to accelerate the processes of pro-climate transformation of the economy were missed by the government. Subsidies for the development of renewable energy sources were not increased and were even reduced on some issues. Since April 2022, the government has reduced subsidies and worsened the economic conditions for the installation of photovoltaic panels by citizens on the roofs of their houses. There is a lack of subsidies for insulating the facades of buildings and single-family houses, installing photovoltaics, installing heat pumps and other renewable energy solutions. Poland has still not met the European Union guidelines for receiving EU subsidies to finance projects that could be implemented under the National Reconstruction Programme. As a result, the development of renewable and emission-free energy sources has slowed down instead of accelerating as it could have done during the pandemic. Unfortunately, still the process of pro-environmental and pro-climate transformation of the energy sector is progressing much slower than it could if the issue of green transformation of the economy was not ignored in the political and business spheres in Poland. The result of these omissions, neglect and ignorance is the current low level of energy independence and security in Poland in the context of the currently developing energy crisis. The result of this neglect is also the poor air quality in Poland. Poland has one of the worst air quality in the world. Poland is one of the 3 countries in Europe with the highest mortality rate caused by poor air quality polluted with various toxins resulting mainly from the dominant dirty energy industry based on burning fossil fuels. In addition, even more negative consequences of these omissions, negligence and ignorance appear in the future, when the process of global warming will significantly accelerate in the next decades and lead to a worsening of the climate crisis and to a climate catastrophe, which may already occur at the end of this 21st century.
The potential for accelerating the processes of pro-climate transformation of the economy that occurred during the SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) coronavirus pandemic was described in my publications, which I posted on my profile of this Research Gate portal after publication:
What does it look like in your country?
Did the SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) coronavirus pandemic potentially increase opportunities to accelerate processes of pro-climate and pro-environmental transformation of the economy, but unfortunately these opportunities were not used?
Please respond,
I invite you all to discuss,
Thank you very much,
Warm regards,
Dariusz Prokopowicz
Under dwarf green markets are consumers currently being scammed?
Question
9 answers
  • Lucio MuñozLucio Muñoz
Have you bought groceries or food lately? Have you noticed that the cost of items that form part of the production cost of the product or service you are buying, like plastic bags or food containers that once were free pollution, are now being charge extra to consumers when buying passing to them the apparent environmental responsibility of dealing with them, but the extra money now you are required to pay for the same plastic bags/containers goes directly to the company profits, not to any private nor government nor even to the same company recycling program as perhaps there is none. And governments seem to be okay with this new practice which is now spreading from major corporations to small businesses leaving consumers with no protection.
In a sense, dwarf green markets provide a cover for companies to pass their cost of production plus the “green grab” to consumers usually without having to disclose in advertising what they are doing so, a kind of deceiving as if those items cost more to companies now increasing their production costs that way, then they should increase the prices of their products or services instead, giving that way the option to consumers to buy at a higher price or not.
So consumers pay more, but their extra pay has not clear environmental benefits from consuming at a higher price, which raises the question, under dwarf green markets are consumers currently being scammed by the business community?
What do you think? Please detail your own view.

Related Publications

Book
Full-text available
Viene sperimenta una nuova modalità di formazione di tipo partecipato con le imprese del comparto vivaistico pistoiese, volta alla concreta diffusione di buone pratiche di gestione ambientale, inserite in linee guida e validate da un ente terzo di certificazione. Queste linee guida potranno in futuro evolversi in un protocollo di gestione ambiental...
Article
Full-text available
The science of environmental management is one of the areas of great interest in the present millennium. It deals with the whole concept of the environment, its characteristics, resources, and effective exploitation for the benefit of man. The environment offers unlimited opportunities for socio-economic development through effective exploration an...
Got a technical question?
Get high-quality answers from experts.