Question
Asked 3rd Aug, 2022
  • Independent QLC researcher

Why are climate change economics and perfect green market economics incompatible?

Any ideas? What do you think?

Most recent answer

20th Sep, 2022
Lucio Muñoz
Independent QLC researcher
Dear friends, some of you may find some good food for thoughts in this article just published. Here sharing it in good faith.
Sustainability thoughts 139: How can the 2012 road to transition from environmental pollution based traditional economies to the environmentally clean economies that the world never built be pointed out?

Popular answers (1)

Climate change is broad, it encompasses more than Green market
So it's will be difficult for the two to go at the same level
3 Recommendations

All Answers (13)

4th Aug, 2022
Proloy Barua
BRAC University
Very contemporary question. Hope to learn from experts.I refer Jefrey Sachs 7 transformations to sustainable development as well as this video links. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JsDOpCtsVX8
4th Aug, 2022
Ilan Kelman
University College London
The science is well beyond focusing on climate change economics and market approaches. Alternatives which are far more encompassing:
1. Circular economy (Stahel and Reday-Mulvey, 1977/1981).
2. Deglobalization (Bello 2008).
3. Degrowth (Lefèvre 2004).
4. Doughnut economics (Raworth 2017) despite its focus on the heavily critiqued Planetary Boundaries framework.
5. Essential exponential (Bartlett 2004).
6. Overshoot / Homo colossus (Catton, Jr. 1982).
7. Steady state economy (Daly 1977).
Specific sustainability agendas:
1 Recommendation
4th Aug, 2022
Lucio Muñoz
Independent QLC researcher
Proloy, what is your take on this specific question? Do you have a view?
Lucio
4th Aug, 2022
Lucio Muñoz
Independent QLC researcher
Ilan, Do you have a view on this question too? Please share it.
Lucio
4th Aug, 2022
Dariusz Prokopowicz
Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University in Warsaw
Dear Lucio,
In my opinion, the economics of climate change and the economics of a perfect green market are reconcilable, but only in theory. I have described this in my articles. Unfortunately, from theory to reality is a very big gap in this field. For the time being, the process of carrying out a full pro-environmental transformation of the classic growth, brown, linear economy of excess to a sustainable, green, zero-carbon zero-growth and closed loop economy to create a zero-carbon economy, to halt the progressive process of global warming, to halt the over-consumption of natural resources, to halt the increase in environmental pollution is not possible with the current political, economic, financial, social, etc. realities. Therefore, in reality, the economics of climate change and the economics of a perfect green market are incompatible, despite the fact that it has been theoretically described how this can be achieved.
Thank you very much,
Best regards,
Dariusz
1 Recommendation
5th Aug, 2022
Lucio Muñoz
Independent QLC researcher
Dariusz, your statement "in my opinion, the economics of climate change and the economics of a perfect green market are reconcilable, but only in theory.", are you sure about this statement?...
Both models are different in theory, and both models fit the reality differently....
That is why the question is "Why are climate change economics and perfect green market economics incompatible?",,,,to uncover the differences....
Dariusz, in case you have not read it yet, this article has some good for thoughts consistent with this question, take a look at it when you have time,,,,
The Flipping of Traditional Economic Thinking: Contrasting the Working of Dwarf Green Market Thinking with that of Green Market Thinking to Highlight Main Differences and Implications
6th Aug, 2022
Emmanuel V Murray
National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development
They are not. They are generally in Sync.
6th Aug, 2022
Lucio Muñoz
Independent QLC researcher
Emmanuel, thanks for commenting. Why do you think they are compatible or in sync?
14th Aug, 2022
Lucio Muñoz
Independent QLC researcher
Good Ali! Thank you for sharing material
The goal of this question is to exchange ideas directly, our own ideas, so we can defend them if needed.
Do you have a view on the answer to this specific question?
Respectfully yours;
Lucio
Climate change is broad, it encompasses more than Green market
So it's will be difficult for the two to go at the same level
3 Recommendations
19th Sep, 2022
Lucio Muñoz
Independent QLC researcher
Dear John, thank you for commenting.
Keep in mind, a climate change markets and the green market have a different structure and work differently, the knowledge base of one of them does not work in the other.
Think again and comment again.
Respectfully yours
Lucio
20th Sep, 2022
Lucio Muñoz
Independent QLC researcher
Dear friends, some of you may find some good food for thoughts in this article just published. Here sharing it in good faith.
Sustainability thoughts 139: How can the 2012 road to transition from environmental pollution based traditional economies to the environmentally clean economies that the world never built be pointed out?

Similar questions and discussions

What socio-economic policy is appropriate for the period of slowdown in economic growth?
Discussion
783 replies
  • Dariusz ProkopowiczDariusz Prokopowicz
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.

Related Publications

Thesis
Full-text available
Chapter 5 addresses the question: is it possible for there to be a form of economic growth that is socially and environmentally sustainable, and if so, under what conditions? Chapter 5 starts the main focus of this thesis namely whether or not it is possible to achieve better economic, social and environmental outcomes at a national, macro-econo...
Article
In the 21st Century, due to challenges created by global warming, nations and individuals have been more concerned with the environment protection at the time and also consumer groups demanded environmentally friendly products, leading to the emergence of a ‘new marketing philosophy’ called Green Marketing. Given the adverse effects and complicatio...
Got a technical question?
Get high-quality answers from experts.