Question
Asked 22nd Sep, 2022
  • Independent QLC researcher

Is the goal of dwarf green markets like climate change markets to reach a level of natural environmental immunity through pollution management?

The choices usually in conflict are, should we fix the root cause of the problem or should we just manage the problem?
The case of the pandemic shows that there were those who opposed the solution of the problem with Covid 19 vaccines to attack the root cause (the virus) of the problem to minimize severity of infection or chances of hospitalization or changes of death; and those who just wanted the Covid 19 to be managed in such a way as to facilitate the reaching of natural immunity regardless of death levels or severity of consequences of just managing the Covid 19 problem.
In the case of the Covid 19 problem most countries if not all, chose to attack the root cause problem with the vaccine.
In the case of the environmental pollution problem, the international and local community is focused since 2012 on managing the pollution generation problem instead of fixing the root cause of the pollution generation problem(distorted market prices).
In the case of the pollution generation problem most countries if not all, chose to avoid fixing the root cause pollution generation problem with green markets in 2012 as the environmental cost internalization as vaccine, and went instead with the way of managing the pollution generation problem with environmental pollution management based markets.
And this raises the question, is the goal of dwarf green markets like climate change markets to reach a level of natural environmental immunity locally and globally through pollution management? While leaving the root cause of the pollution generation problem unfixed?
What do you think? Yes, then why? No, then why not?

Most recent answer

25th Oct, 2022
Lucio Muñoz
Independent QLC researcher
Sharing here article just published that you may find interesting in terms of food 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?

Popular answers (1)

23rd Sep, 2022
Dariusz Prokopowicz
Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University in Warsaw
Dear Lucio,
I will also answer your question by referring to the economic crisis indirectly caused by the SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) coronavirus pandemic in 2020. When the World Health Organization announced the state of a global epidemic at the beginning of March 2020, i.e. of the pandemic, the reaction of the financial markets was too nervous, too deep, too exaggerated. The behavior of stock exchange investors and the speculation of large financial institutions worked. Some governments fearing that there would be a shortage of beds in hospitals for seriously ill people with Covid-19 introduced lockdowns, which caused serious economic problems in many industries and sectors of the economy. In order for these decisions not to cause protests from the public, the government granted non-returnable subsidies to business entities on the basis of printed money in the public finance system cooperating with the central bank. These actions started an increase in inflation in 2021. Now, when we ask whether lockdowns have been applied to selected sectors of the economy in the context of rapidly developed vaccines and the scale of the severely ill with Covid-19 population and deaths from Covid-19 and comorbidities, different answers are coming up. The difference between the so-called the health crisis caused by the pandemic announced by the WHO and the climate crisis is that the pandemic appeared suddenly and was something new, and the climate crisis is being realized as a long-term, multi-year process. An interesting point is that so far WHO has not lifted the pandemic state, despite the fact that in many countries the pandemic has already been replaced with a state of increased virological risk, the anti-pandemic restriction has been lifted, the number of people seriously ill with Covid-19 has significantly decreased and the government has already recognized other problems as more important, which should be solved systematically and with the use of funds from the public finance system of the state. Such problems are currently double-digit and still growing inflation, and raised interest rates. by central banks and the economy entering a recession, energy crisis, food crisis, climate crisis. However, now referring to your question, I state that what you define as dwarf green markets, i.e. incomplete application of sustainability, pro-environmentalism, pro-climate in economic policy, is a kind of prosthesis of actions that should be implemented as part of a full pro-environmental and pro-climate transformation of the economy and are not realistically implemented. The reason is resistance in the spheres of business and politics, the lobby of large mining, mining and energy companies, as well as refineries operating in the sector or for the benefit of the dirty combustion energy sector. These sectors are key factors in slowing down the green transformation. Therefore, instead of fully carrying out the pro-environmental and pro-climate transformation of the classic growth, brown, linear surplus economy into a sustainable, green, zero-emission, zero-growth economy and a circular economy, prostheses of these processes are created, i.e. what you refer to as dwarf green markets. Thus, a short-sighted approach still prevails instead of long-term and strategic planning. Ad hoc measures are still being taken instead of introducing profound changes in the area of ​​pro-environmental and pro-climate transformation of the economy. The problem is still being swept under the rug instead of solving the problem in a multi-faceted manner and reaching the source of the problem. Contrary to the situation from the 1st wave of the pandemic (spring 2020), we know what to do in terms of the pro-environmental and pro-climate transformation of the economy, but we still do not fully do it, assuming that it will be done somehow. On the other hand, there is little time for a full pro-environmental and pro-climate transformation of the economy, thanks to which it would be possible to significantly slow down the global warming process, which has been progressing since the first industrial revolution and accelerating in recent years, and to significantly reduce the scale of the potential negative effects of the climate catastrophe, which may already appear in the current XXI century. In this way, instead of carrying out a complete, thorough (with reaching the source of the problem and taking into account a long-term strategy) pro-environmental and pro-climate transformation of the economy, prostheses of this process are created and dwarf green markets are created as you have described it. For example, companies and enterprises add to their missions and development strategies the issues of achieving the goals of sustainable development, pro-environmental and pro-climate responsibility of business, although they do not really do much in this matter. They present their new green missions in advertising campaigns with their new product and service offers, because they see that the level of pro-environmental awareness of citizens, i.e. their potential customers, is growing. On the other hand, penalties for introducing toxic waste into the natural environment, for CO2 emissions to the atmosphere, for poisoning the natural environment and increasing the incidence of various diseases occurring in humans and animals, etc., are not always allocated to solving these problems, to increasing the scale activities implemented under the environmental and pro-climate policy. Probably many people still do not realize that it is not much time left.
Best regards,
Dariusz
4 Recommendations

All Answers (5)

23rd Sep, 2022
Dariusz Prokopowicz
Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University in Warsaw
Dear Lucio,
I will also answer your question by referring to the economic crisis indirectly caused by the SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) coronavirus pandemic in 2020. When the World Health Organization announced the state of a global epidemic at the beginning of March 2020, i.e. of the pandemic, the reaction of the financial markets was too nervous, too deep, too exaggerated. The behavior of stock exchange investors and the speculation of large financial institutions worked. Some governments fearing that there would be a shortage of beds in hospitals for seriously ill people with Covid-19 introduced lockdowns, which caused serious economic problems in many industries and sectors of the economy. In order for these decisions not to cause protests from the public, the government granted non-returnable subsidies to business entities on the basis of printed money in the public finance system cooperating with the central bank. These actions started an increase in inflation in 2021. Now, when we ask whether lockdowns have been applied to selected sectors of the economy in the context of rapidly developed vaccines and the scale of the severely ill with Covid-19 population and deaths from Covid-19 and comorbidities, different answers are coming up. The difference between the so-called the health crisis caused by the pandemic announced by the WHO and the climate crisis is that the pandemic appeared suddenly and was something new, and the climate crisis is being realized as a long-term, multi-year process. An interesting point is that so far WHO has not lifted the pandemic state, despite the fact that in many countries the pandemic has already been replaced with a state of increased virological risk, the anti-pandemic restriction has been lifted, the number of people seriously ill with Covid-19 has significantly decreased and the government has already recognized other problems as more important, which should be solved systematically and with the use of funds from the public finance system of the state. Such problems are currently double-digit and still growing inflation, and raised interest rates. by central banks and the economy entering a recession, energy crisis, food crisis, climate crisis. However, now referring to your question, I state that what you define as dwarf green markets, i.e. incomplete application of sustainability, pro-environmentalism, pro-climate in economic policy, is a kind of prosthesis of actions that should be implemented as part of a full pro-environmental and pro-climate transformation of the economy and are not realistically implemented. The reason is resistance in the spheres of business and politics, the lobby of large mining, mining and energy companies, as well as refineries operating in the sector or for the benefit of the dirty combustion energy sector. These sectors are key factors in slowing down the green transformation. Therefore, instead of fully carrying out the pro-environmental and pro-climate transformation of the classic growth, brown, linear surplus economy into a sustainable, green, zero-emission, zero-growth economy and a circular economy, prostheses of these processes are created, i.e. what you refer to as dwarf green markets. Thus, a short-sighted approach still prevails instead of long-term and strategic planning. Ad hoc measures are still being taken instead of introducing profound changes in the area of ​​pro-environmental and pro-climate transformation of the economy. The problem is still being swept under the rug instead of solving the problem in a multi-faceted manner and reaching the source of the problem. Contrary to the situation from the 1st wave of the pandemic (spring 2020), we know what to do in terms of the pro-environmental and pro-climate transformation of the economy, but we still do not fully do it, assuming that it will be done somehow. On the other hand, there is little time for a full pro-environmental and pro-climate transformation of the economy, thanks to which it would be possible to significantly slow down the global warming process, which has been progressing since the first industrial revolution and accelerating in recent years, and to significantly reduce the scale of the potential negative effects of the climate catastrophe, which may already appear in the current XXI century. In this way, instead of carrying out a complete, thorough (with reaching the source of the problem and taking into account a long-term strategy) pro-environmental and pro-climate transformation of the economy, prostheses of this process are created and dwarf green markets are created as you have described it. For example, companies and enterprises add to their missions and development strategies the issues of achieving the goals of sustainable development, pro-environmental and pro-climate responsibility of business, although they do not really do much in this matter. They present their new green missions in advertising campaigns with their new product and service offers, because they see that the level of pro-environmental awareness of citizens, i.e. their potential customers, is growing. On the other hand, penalties for introducing toxic waste into the natural environment, for CO2 emissions to the atmosphere, for poisoning the natural environment and increasing the incidence of various diseases occurring in humans and animals, etc., are not always allocated to solving these problems, to increasing the scale activities implemented under the environmental and pro-climate policy. Probably many people still do not realize that it is not much time left.
Best regards,
Dariusz
4 Recommendations
24th Sep, 2022
Lucio Muñoz
Independent QLC researcher
Dear Dariusz, good day.
The question here is very specific, Is the goal of dwarf green markets like climate change markets to reach a level of natural environmental immunity through pollution management?
The key thought is: The choices usually in conflict are, should we fix the root cause of the problem or should we just manage the problem?
In the case of the pandemic problem the choice of the fixing of the root cause, the virus, with vaccines won, but if they would have decided to go the way of managing the pandemic the goal would have been until there is natural health immunity.
In the case of the pollution problem the choice of avoiding green market paradigm shift in order to just manage the pollution production problem through dwarf green markets a la environmental externality management won, the choice of fixing the pollution production problem lost
So the specific question again here Dariusz with the fact in mind that "the pollution management option is at play since 2012":
What do you think?
Is the goal of dwarf green markets like climate change markets to reach a level of natural environmental immunity through pollution management?
If you think Yes, you can indicate in a few sentences why you think so
If you think No, you can indicate in a few sentences why you think so.
26th Sep, 2022
Frank Veroustraete
REDSTAR CV&M
Nuance (the extensive area between Yes and No) is the weapon of a critical mind Lucio. Never learned at school, that questions, especially about climate change, do have a lot of possible answers? This is sometimes also called critical scientific research!
And what the hell do you mean with 'dwarf green markets'? Climate Change has already costed humanity billions of dollars in human, animal and crop death and destruction,... caused by extreme events! Is that your 'dwarf green market'?
By the way Lucio, Climate and Climate Change are not 'markets', they are geo-physical phenomena, requiring lots of research to get a scientifically based grip on it!
Lots of luck with your survival in the Earh's future climate mate!
Frank
27th Sep, 2022
Lucio Muñoz
Independent QLC researcher
Dear Frank, thank you for taking the time to comment.
Your comment all over the place indicates to me you may not be a true critical thinker as you think,...
A true critical thinker would think twice before trying to answer a question without doing due diligence and check knowledge that may be outside your box so you can have a full understanding of the knowledge base needed for positive criticism from that angle and to point the way forward from your point of view….
Screaming and saying what the hell is not good enough….
I am not here to convert anyone, just to share ideas, but if you Google those concepts that currently seem to escape your mind/your thinking box, you will probably find them,,,,
Are you aware that people won the Nobel Prize in economics a few years ago by linking climate change with the macro economy and that the current mantra right now, strong in Europe and international institutions, is CLIMATE CHANGE ECONOMICS? I hope you do….
Frank, I suggest you should read my question again and its supporting context, and then you can answer it from the NUANCE point of view and then we go from there….
The question is: Is the goal of dwarf green markets like climate change markets to reach a level of natural environmental immunity through pollution management?
What do you think the goal is from the Nuance point of view?
Respectfully yours;
Lucio
25th Oct, 2022
Lucio Muñoz
Independent QLC researcher
Sharing here article just published that you may find interesting in terms of food 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

Is it time we shift emphasis from technological solutions to climate change & focus on the 'Human Dimension'?
Question
6915 answers
  • Raveendra Nath YasarapuRaveendra Nath Yasarapu
Isn't the obvious solution and the elephant-in-the-room 'BETTER HUMAN BEINGS'? Shouldn't the focus be on better human beings rather than better technology? Why is it that everyone wants to develop better technology rather than focus on better humanity? Because no one has the answers and no one wants to change themselves? In environmental degradation, is it not obvious that nature can heal itself, if only left alone, and it is we humans who need regulation? Many natural parks managers do just that; seal off the area from human interference to let nature heal and recover. It is classified as 'Strict Nature Reserve"by IUCN. Complacency and inaction are not advocated here, as many have misunderstood, but the shifting of focus from technology to the human being. As technology is no match for human greed, isn't introspection & restraining ourselves more relevant than developing more technology, which caused the mess in the first place, by making it easy for a few to consume more? Since technology is only a short term quick fix which fails after a short time, isn't the real problem our addiction to material consumption & our lack of understanding about human nature? Isn't developing more technology sustaining the addiction instead of correcting it, leading to more complex problems later on, needing more complex technological quick fixes like higher drug dosages, more ground troops & equipment, (along with their debilitating side effects) in the future? Isn't this the vicious addiction circle we are trapped in? As researchers, do we merely buy more time with technology OR go to the very root of the problem, the human being?
A lot of hue and cry is made about climate change and the environment in general. Public and private money is poured into research to study its effects on the environment, sustainability etc. Should we study nature or ourselves?
" Our studies must begin with our selves and not with the heavens. "-Ouspensky
Human activities have been found to have a direct correlation to climate change and its impact on the environment(I=P x A x T, the Ehrlich and Holdren equation), in spite of what some complacent sections say to protect their own self interests.
We hardly know about Human nature. We can scarcely predict human behavior. We need to find out why we think like we do and why we do what we do and why, in spite of all knowledge and wisdom, consume more than what we need, in the form of addictions to consumption and imbalance not only ourselves but also the family, society and environment around us..
Humanity is directly responsible for all the unnatural imbalances occurring on the planet. Yet we refuse to take responsibility and instead focus on climate change, or fool the public exchequer with a 'breakthrough in renewable energy just around the corner'. We scarcely know what drives human beings. If we had known, all the imbalances around us would have had solutions by now, given the amount of money plowed into finding such solutions. Are we blindly groping in the dark of climate change because we don't know the answers to our own nature?
Is it not high time we focus on what makes us human, correct our consumptive behavior and leave nature to take care of climate change? Why focus effort on 'externals' when the problem is 'internal'- 'me'?
Aren't we addicts denying our addiction and blaming everything else but ourselves?
" We are what we think.
All that we are arises with our thoughts.
With our thoughts, we make the world." - Buddha 
IMHO, We don't need to save the World. It is enough if we save ourselves from ourselves. The need of the hour is not vain glorious interventions, but self-restraint and self-correction!
The Mind is the Final frontier.
How can environmental protection and biodiversity be improved by using current ecological technologies?
Discussion
1573 replies
  • Dariusz ProkopowiczDariusz Prokopowicz
Due to the current civilization progress in recent decades, acceleration of the development of industry, automotive, urban agglomerations, intensification of agricultural production, etc. and related greenhouse gas emissions, global warming, ozone layer depletion in the atecologicalecologicalmosphere, increase of environmental pollution, growing problem of smog in urban agglomerations, the increase in pollution of the seas and oceans to which unsorted waste is thrown away is cut out as part of the predatory economy of tropical forests in the Amazon and other largest natural forest ecosystems.
In addition, the secondary effect of global warming of the Earth's climate is the increasing, more frequent weather anomalies, including drought, leading to steppe and desertification of areas that were previously natural forest ecosystems or areas exploited by agriculture.
As a result of the above-mentioned processes, every year many species of flora and fauna disappear forever.
As a result, natural biodiversity diminishes, which for millions of years evolved evolutionally on Earth.
In this way the natural resources of the planet Earth are irretrievably in decline.
In view of the above, the issue of environmental protection and biodiversity is one of the most important challenges of humanity in the 21st century.
Classical economics must change towards a green economy based on the strategy of sustainable pro-ecological development.
Therefore, I am asking you for the following query:
How can environmental protection and biodiversity be improved by using current ecological technologies?
Please, answer, comments.
I invite you to the discussion.
Best wishes
Do the local authorities of your municipality effectively implement pro-environmental and pro-climate policies?
Discussion
Be the first to reply
  • Dariusz ProkopowiczDariusz Prokopowicz
Do the local authorities of your municipality efficiently implement pro-environmental and pro-climate social and economic projects and effectively conduct pro-environmental and pro-climate policy?
Alongside central government institutions, local authorities play a particularly important role in realising the expectations of citizens living in specific municipalities, regions of the country. Some municipalities are already implementing green projects, co-financing pro-climate and pro-environmental economic, educational, social, cultural, etc. projects. However, there is often a large discrepancy between the policy pursued by central government institutions and local authorities. This is the case in many municipalities in the country in which I operate. This discord is based on the fact that the current PIS government has for the last seven years been limiting and slowing down the processes of pro-environmental and pro-climate transformation of the economy, including the development of renewable and emission-free energy sources. Many self-governments, seeing the expectations of citizens, were planning to develop green socio-economic undertakings, projects of pro-environmental and pro-climate transformation of the local self-government economy, but the unfavourable economic policy of the national government limits or blocks such green transformation. In addition, the government has funds at its disposal from the speculative trade in CO2 emission rights, which should be allocated to the implementation of pro-environmental and pro-climate, green, sustainable economic projects, but unfortunately are not.
In view of the above, I address the following question to the esteemed community of researchers and scientists:
What does it look like in your municipality?
How does this issue look in your country? Does the government cooperate effectively with local authorities in order to implement pro-environmental and pro-climate, green, sustainable economic projects and thus to achieve a smooth green transformation of the economy?
Do the local authorities of your municipality efficiently implement pro-environmental and pro-climate social and economic projects and effectively pursue pro-environmental and pro-climate policies?
Please respond,
I invite you all to discuss,
Thank you very much,
Best regards,
Dariusz Prokopowicz

Related Publications

Conference Paper
Full-text available
Environmental sustainability is probably the most significant factor in health and it is the responsibility of all practitioners to be aware of its various dimensions in relation to impact on human life (Beltran et al 2016; Jennings et al 2016). It is pretty well universally understood that most current climate change is a consequence of human beha...
Article
Full-text available
The paper aims to emphasize, based on an interdisciplinary and multi-level approach, on the actual and potential contributions of businesses towards a green economic development - through the positive integration of the environmental challenges within their initiatives and strategies. The main objectives that the paper will target in order to accom...
Got a technical question?
Get high-quality answers from experts.