ArticlePDF Available

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?

Authors:
  • Independent QLC researcher

Abstract and Figures

When the Brundtland Commission said in 1987 that the business as usual model of Adam Smith needed to address the social and environmental issues associated with it, this meant that there was a socio-environmental pollution problem separating the dirty traditional economy from the clean economy. When the UNCSD in 2012 gave priority to addressing the environmental issue only associated with the dirty traditional market model, this meant that there was an environmental pollution problem between the environmentally dirty traditional market and the environmentally clean market. This situation brought the need to think about how the transition from the environmentally dirty traditional market to the environmentally clean market could be framed step by step, but instead of thinking in terms of transition to the environmentally clean economy attention was given since 2012 to adopting environmental externality management based markets or dwarf green markets. Whether mainstream thinkers in the sustainable development area failed in 2012 to see how the transition road from environmentally dirty traditional markets to environmentally clean markets could be built is not clear, but what it is clear is that there is no transition link from dwarf green markets to environmentally clean markets as dwarf green markets are still active environmental externality based markets as the root cause of the environmental problem is not yet corrected. And this raises the question, how can the 2012 road to transition from environmental pollution based traditional economies to environmentally clean economies that the world never built be pointed out? What are the implications of this? Among the goals of this paper is to provide answers to those questions.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Citation:
Muñoz, Lucio, 2022. 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?, In: International Journal of
Education Humanities and Social Science(IJEHSS), Vol. 5, No. 05, Pp. 65-77, ISSN: 2582-
0745, India.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
By
Lucio Muñoz*
* Independent Qualitative Comparative Researcher / Consultant, Vancouver, BC, Canada Email: munoz@interchange.ubc.ca
Abstract
When the Brundtland Commission said in 1987 that the business as usual model of Adam
Smith needed to address the social and environmental issues associated with it, this meant that
there was a socio-environmental pollution problem separating the dirty traditional economy from
the clean economy. When the UNCSD in 2012 gave priority to addressing the environmental
issue only associated with the dirty traditional market model, this meant that there was an
environmental pollution problem between the environmentally dirty traditional market and the
environmentally clean market. This situation brought the need to think about how the transition
from the environmentally dirty traditional market to the environmentally clean market could be
framed step by step, but instead of thinking in terms of transition to the environmentally clean
economy attention was given since 2012 to adopting environmental externality management
based markets or dwarf green markets. Whether mainstream thinkers in the sustainable
development area failed in 2012 to see how the transition road from environmentally dirty
traditional markets to environmentally clean markets could be built is not clear, but what it is
clear is that there is no transition link from dwarf green markets to environmentally clean
markets as dwarf green markets are still active environmental externality based markets as the
root cause of the environmental problem is not yet corrected. And this raises the question, how
can the 2012 road to transition from environmental pollution based traditional economies to
environmentally clean economies that the world never built be pointed out? What are the
implications of this? Among the goals of this paper is to provide answers to those questions.
Key concepts
Green markets, dwarf green markets, traditional market, dirty market, clean market,
environmental pollution, transition to clean markets, dirty economies, clean economies,
externality management markets, pollution reduction markets.
Introduction
a) The structure of dirty markets
A dirty market(DM) is a market that produces both extreme social and environmental
pollution(PO) in the long term, a situation represented in Figure 1 below:
Figure 1 above tells us that the byproduct of dirty markets(DM) in the long term is
extreme social and environmental pollution(PO).
b) The structure of environmentally dirty markets
An environmentally dirty market(EDM) is a market that produces extreme environmental
pollution(EPO) in the long term, a situation described in Figure 2 below:
Figure 2 above indicates that the byproduct of environmentally dirty markets(EDM) in
the long term is extreme environmental pollution(EPO).
c) The structure of environmentally clean markets
An environmentally clean market(ECLM) is a market where there is no environmental
pollution(NEPO), a situation stated in Figure 3 below:
Figure 3 above shows that there is no environmental pollution(NEPO) in the working of
environmentally clean markets(ECLM) as they are full renewable energy based markets.
d) Linking the environmentally dirty market and the environmentally clean market
Since environmentally dirty markets(EDM) produce environmental pollution(EPO) and
environmentally clean markets do not, then there is an environmental pollution problem
separating dirty markets from clean markets, a situation summarized in Figure 4 below:
Figure 4 above highlights that there is an environmental pollution problem(EPO) between
environmentally dirty markets(EDM) and environmentally clean markets(ECLM) since only the
environmentally dirty market produces environmental pollution as indicated by the continuous
green arrow from EDM to EPO and by the broken green arrow between EPO and ECLM.
e) The building the road to transition from environmentally dirty markets to
environmentally clean markets step by step
Building the transition road from environmentally dirty markets(EDM) to
environmentally clean markets(ECLM) requires first the implementation of environmental
pollution reduction markets(EPORM) to address the root cause of the environmental pollution
problem(EPO), and then transition this pollution reduction markets(EPORM) from fully or
dominant non-renewable energy based economies to fully or dominant renewable energy based
economies closing that way the renewable energy technology gap(RETG), a situation pointed out
in Figure 5 below:
Figure 5 above points out the two steps required to be implemented, one after the other,
to frame the transition from environmentally dirty markets(EDM) to environmentally clean
markets(ECLM): i) First, to set up environmental pollution reduction markets(EPORM) by
making pollution reduction a profitable business opportunity; and ii) to transition the
environmental pollution reduction market(EPORM) to the environmentally clean market(ECLM)
by closing the renewable energy technology gap(RETG) by increasingly substituting
permanently non-renewable energy for renewable energy until we reach a full renewable energy
based economy.
f) The road from environmentally dirty economies to environmentally clean economies
Hence the road from the environmentally dirty market(EDM) to the environmentally
clean market has two steps: the placing of environmental pollution reduction markets(EPORM)
between them first, and then the transition of environmental pollution reduction markets from no
use of renewable energy to permanent full use of renewable energy, as indicated in Figure 6
below:
We can stress the following based on Figure 6 above: i) We can shift the environmentally
dirty market(EDM) to the environmental pollution reduction market(EPORM) by internalizing
the environmental pollution problem I[EPO] in the pricing mechanism of the environmentally
dirty model(EDM); and ii) Once the environmental pollution reduction market(EPORM) is in
place we close the renewable energy technology gap(RETG = RE/NRE) by increasingly and
permanently substituting non-renewable energy(environmentally dirty energy source) for
renewable energy(environmentally clean energy source) from no use of renewable energy(RETG
= 0) to full use of renewable energy(RETG = ).
g) The need to understand the structure of the transition from environmental pollution
based dirty traditional markets to the environmentally clean markets that never took place
When the Brundtland Commission(WCED 1987) said in 1987 that the business as usual
model of Adam Smith(Smith 1776) needed to address the social and environmental issues
associated with it, this meant that there was a socio-environmental pollution problem separating
the dirty traditional economy from the clean economy. When the United Nations Conference on
Sustainable Development(UNCSD 2012a; UNCSD 2012b) in 2012 gave priority to addressing
the environmental issue only associated with the dirty traditional market model(TM), this meant
that there was an environmental pollution problem between the environmentally dirty traditional
market and the environmentally clean market.
This situation above brought relevance to the need to think about how to the transition
from the environmentally dirty traditional market to the environmentally clean market could be
framed step by step as indicated above in detail, but instead of thinking in terms of transition to
the environmentally clean economy attention was given since 2012 to adopting environmental
externality management based markets or dwarf green markets. Whether mainstream thinkers in
the sustainable development area failed in 2012 to see how the transition road from
environmentally dirty traditional markets to environmentally clean markets could be built is not
clear, but what it is clear is that there is no transition link from dwarf green markets to
environmentally clean markets as dwarf green markets are still active environmental externality
based markets as the root cause of the environmental problem is not yet corrected. It has been
pointed out that going dwarf green markets a la environmental externality management in 2012
meant starting to address the environmental crisis with the wrong foot(Muñoz 2016a) as only
perfect green market thinking(Muñoz 2016b) could be used to fix the root cause of the pollution
problem and to put that way a fast break to pollution generating activity that was taking place
while at the same time creating the right conditions to transition to the environmentally clean
economy. Avoiding paradigm shift like the green market paradigm shift in 2012 and going
dwarf green markets since then according to the Thomas Kuhns scientific revolution loop can
only happen under willful academic blindness(Muñoz 2022) as decision makers knew or should
have known that going dwarf green markets is not a fix to the pollution problem, it is just a
patch.
Therefore, there is a need to understand the structure of the 2012 transition from
environmental pollution based dirty traditional markets to the environmentally clean markets that
never took place. And this raises the question, how can the 2012 road to transition from
environmental pollution based traditional economies to environmentally clean economies that the
world never built be pointed out? What are the implications of this? Among the goals of this
paper is to provide answers to those questions.
Goals of this paper
a) To point out that there is an environmental externality problem in between the
environmentally dirty traditional market and the environmentally clean market; b) To stress the
step by step approach to build the transition road from environmentally dirty traditional markets
to environmentally clean markets; c) To highlight the structure of the road to transition from the
environmentally dirty traditional market to the environmentally clean markets; and d) to share
the structure of green market paradigm shift avoidance and its disconnection from
environmentally clean markets.
Methodology
First the terminology used in this paper is shared. Second, the structure showing that
there is an environmental externality problem between the environmentally dirty traditional
market and the environmentally clean market is shared. Third, the structure detailing the step by
step approach to build the transition road from environmentally dirty traditional markets to
environmentally clean markets is given. Fourth, the structure of the road to transition from the
environmentally dirty traditional market to the environmentally clean markets is highlighted.
Fifth, the structure of green market paradigm shift avoidance and its disconnection from
environmentally clean markets is provided. And finally, some food for thoughts and relevant
conclusions are listed.
Terminology
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TM = The traditional market GM = The green market
EDM = The environmentally dirty market PO = Pollution
EPO = Environmental pollution E[C] = Environmental cost externalization
I[c] = Environmental cost internalization CLM = The clean market
EPORM = Environmental pollution reduction market DM = The dirty market
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operational concepts and paradigm Kuhns loop transformations, relevant models,
externalization and internalization rules
A) Operational concepts
1) Science, the world based on the scientific truth, this world falls if invalidated.
2) Ideology, the world based on the non-scientific truth, this world will tend to persist even if
invalidated.
3) The theory-practice general consistency principle, the world where the theory of the model
must match the practice.
4) The different model general inconsistency principle, the world where the theory and
practice of different models are inconsistent with each other.
5) Academic facts, the science based truth.
6) Alternative academic facts, the non-science based truth.
7) Academic blindness, the inability to see academic facts due to the existence of knowledge
gaps, paradigm shift based or otherwise.
8) Willful academic blindness, the willingness to ignore academic facts and consensus.
9) Sustainability, the world where the interplay of sustainability theory and sustainability
practice is aimed at fixing or correcting embedded externality problems.
10) Sustainable development, the world where the interplay of sustainable development theory
and sustainable development practice is aimed at patching or managing embedded externality
problems.
11) Academic integrity, the duty to respect and defend academic facts and consensus.
12) Golden paradigm, one that does not creates abnormalities.
13) Flawed paradigm, one that creates abnormalities.
14) Kuhns loop, the science based mechanism that leads to paradigm shift through abnormality
correction.
15) Dirty economy, a pollution based economy.
16) Clean economy, a pollution less based economy.
17) Red Marxism, capitalism need to be replaced as it is destroying societies.
18) Green Marxism, dwarf green capitalism must be replaced as it is destroying nature.
19) The red socialism market, the social justice and equality based market.
20) The green socialism market, the environmental justice and equality based market.
21) Green capitalism, capitalism supported by green markets.
22) Dwarf green capitalism, capitalism supported by dwarf green markets.
23) Traditional market, the market cleared by the traditional market price.
24) Green market, the market cleared by the green market price.
25) Red market, the market cleared by the red market price.
B) Paradigm structures
1) A golden paradigm
If we have a dominant paradigm R and it is a golden paradigm GOM, then it produces no
externalities or no abnormalities A
i) GOM = R
As it can be seen in expression i) above the golden model GOM does not produce
abnormalities.
2) A flawed paradigm
If we have a dominant paradigm R and it is a flawed paradigm FLM, then it produces n
externalities or abnormalities A so as A1,A2,….
ii) FLM = R(A1, A2,….An)
As it can be appreciated in expression ii) above the flawed model FLM produces n
abnormalities.
C) The Thomas Kuhns transformation loop(TKTL) under academic integrity
1) Impact on the golden paradigm
If we subject a golden paradigm GOM = R to the Thomas Kuhns transformation
loop(TKTL), the process will have no impact on it as it has no abnormalities A to correct, golden
paradigm GOM remains a golden paradigm GOM
iii) TKTL(GOM) = TKTL(R) = R = GOM
The expression iii) above tells us that the golden model displays TKTL loop neutrality as
it has no abnormalities to remove.
2) Impact on the flawed paradigm
If we subject a flawed paradigm FLM = R(A1,A2,….An) to the Thomas Kuhns
transformation loop(TKTL), the loop process will be active until all abnormalities are corrected
and a golden paradigm GOM arises
iv) TKTL(FLM) = TKTL[R(A1,A2,….An) -------R = GOM
The expression iv) above tells us that the TKTL loop process transforms flawed dominant
paradigms FLM in the end into golden paradigms GOM by correcting the abnormalities
A1…..An affecting them and shifting them in the process.
D) Relevant market structures
If we have the following: a = social abnormality, c = environmental abnormality, A =
dominant society, C = dominant environment, and B = the dominant economy, then the structure
of relevant markets can be stated as indicated below:
1) The traditional market as a golden model
i) TM = B
Under externality neutrality assumptions the traditional market TM in section i) above is
a golden paradigm, it produces no abnormalities.
2) The traditional market under social abnormalities(a)
ii) TM = aB
Under no social externality neutrality assumptions, the traditional market TM in section
ii) above produces social abnormalities a. It is a flawed paradigm as it has social abnormalities
to correct.
3) The traditional market under environmental abnormalities(c)
iii) TM = Bc
Under no environmental externality neutrality assumptions, the traditional market TM in
section iii) above produces environmental abnormalities c. It is a flawed paradigm as it has
environmental externalities to correct.
4) The traditional market under socio-environmental abnormalities(ac)
iv) TM = aBc
Under no socio-environmental externality neutrality assumptions, the traditional market
TM in section iv) above produces socio-environmental abnormalities ac. It is a flawed
paradigm as it has social and environmental externalities to correct.
5) The red market under environmental abnormalities(c)
v) RM = ABc
Under no environmental externality assumptions, the red market RM in section v) above
produces environmental abnormalities. It is a flawed paradigm as it has environmental
externalities to correct. Notice that in the red market RM, both society(A) and economy(B) are in
dominant form.
6) The green market under social abnormalities(a)
vi) GM = aBC
Under no social externality assumptions, the green market GM in section vi) above
produces social abnormalities. It is a flawed paradigm as it has social externalities to correct.
Notice that in the green market GM, both the economy(B) and the environment(C) are in
dominant form.
7) The sustainability market has no abnormalities
vii) SM = ABC
The sustainability market SM in section vii) above produces no abnormalities as all
components are in dominant form since all components are now endogenous to the model. It is a
golden paradigm as it has no abnormalities to correct.
E) Abnormality externalization and internalization rules
If y, x, z are three abnormalities and Y, X, Z are the corrected variables and if E[ ] =
externalization and I[ ] = internalization, then the following holds true:
a) E[Y] = y b) E[X] = x c) E[Z] = z
d) I[y] = Y e) I[x] = X f) I[z] = Z
g) I[E[Y]] = Y h) E[I[y]] = y i) E[YX] = yx
The environmental externality problem in between the environmentally dirty traditional
market and the environmentally clean market
If we make the environmentally dirty market be the traditional market(EDM = TM) and
we make the environmental pollution be the environmental externality(EPO = E[C]) in Figure 4
above, then we create the structure of the environmentally dirty traditional market(TM)
disconnected from the environmentally clean market(ECLM) as indicated in Figure 7 below:
We can appreciate in Figure 7 above that an environmental externality problem(E[C])
separates the environmentally dirty traditional market(TM) and the environmentally clean
market(ECLM). In other words, only the environmentally dirty traditional markets TM produces
externalities E[C] as indicated by the continuous green arrow from TM to E[C] since the
environmentally clean market ECLM does not produce environmental externalities E[C] as
shown by the broken green arrow from E[C] to ECLM.
The relevant steps in building the road to transition from environmentally dirty traditional
markets to the environmentally clean markets
If we make the environmentally dirty market be the traditional market(EDM = TM) and
we make the environmental pollution be the environmental externality(EPO = E[C]) in Figure 5
above, then we create the structure of the steps needed to build the road to transition from
environmentally dirty traditional market(TM) to the environmentally clean market(ECLM) as
shown in Figure 8 below:
Figure 8 above shows the two steps to be taken to build the road to transition from
environmentally dirty traditional markets TM to environmentally clean markets ECLM as
indicated by the continuous green arrow, namely i) to first set up environmental pollution
reduction markets EPORM; and then ii) to transition the environmental pollution reduction
market EPORM to the environmentally clean market through the closing of the renewable
energy technology gap.
The road to transition from the environmentally dirty traditional market to
environmentally clean markets
If we make the environmentally dirty market be the traditional market(EDM = TM) and
we make the environmental pollution reduction market be the green market(EPORM = GM) in
Figure 6 above, then we arrive to the structure of the road to transition from environmentally
dirty traditional market(TM) to the environmentally clean market(ECLM) as shown in Figure 9
below:
We can point out based on Figure 9 above that to transition the environmentally dirty
traditional market TM to the environmentally clean market ECLM we need to set up first green
markets GM and then close the renewable energy technology gap RETG to transition the green
market GM towards the environmentally clean market ECLM. We can appreciate two things in
Figure 9 above: a) a paradigm shift from environmentally dirty traditional markets TM to the
green market GM(TM---GM) as the environmental externality E[C] produced by the
traditional market is now internalized I[E(C)]]; and b) a paradigm transition from green markets
GM towards environmentally clean markets ECLM as the renewable energy technology gap
RETG is closed(RETG-- ). Finally, Figure 9 summarizes the road from environmentally
dirty traditional markets TM to the environmentally clean markets that was never build since
2012 Rio +20 to today when addressing environmental pollution was made the priority
development issue by the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development.
The consequences of green market paradigm shift avoidance
At the UNCSD Conference in 2012, there was academic consensus to go the way of
green markets(GM) to address environmental issues head on as mentioned in the introduction,
but instead they decided to go dwarf green markets(DGM) a la environmental externality
management, a situation shown in Figure 10 below:
Figure 10 above shows the structure of green market paradigm shift avoidance as the
environmentally dirty traditional market TM does not go the route of green markets GM as
expected as indicated by the broken green arrow from TM to GM, but instead it goes the way of
dwarf green markets DGM as shown by the continuous orange line from TM to DGM, a
situation that took place soon after the 2012 Rio +20 conference and which is at work right now.
Four of the main consequences of green market paradigm shift avoidance and the going
with dwarf green markets based on Figure 10 above are 1) The growth of knowledge in terms of
perfect green market thinking and the science based evolution of markets is blocked as the
environmental pollution problem is not internalized leaving the root cause of the pollution
production problem embedded in the environmental pollution production based traditional
market still uncorrected as indicated by the broken green arrow from TM to GM; 2) The
incentive to close the renewable energy technology gap to transition to green markets is blocked
as indicated by the broken green arrow from GM to ECLM; 3) As dwarf green markets DGM are
not fixing the environmental externality E[C] produced by environmentally dirty traditional
markets TM, they are only managing it; then as a long as these markets can make money by just
managing the environmental pollution they have no incentive to do more than what the
management requirements say; and hence, environmentally dirty traditional markets TM cannot
transition to environmentally clean markets ECLM via dwarf green markets DGM as indicated
by the broken orange arrow from DGM to ECLM as there is no incentive to close the renewable
energy technology gap. No incentive in dwarf green markets DGM to close the renewable
energy technology gap makes non-renewable energy sources more valuable for non-renewable
energy sources owners, which turns non-renewable energy dependency in the process more
severe; and this complicates the development choices of all countries involved in the green
market paradigm shift avoidance process due to non-renewable energy access volatility whether
through natural disasters or wars or other supply problems; and 4) the going dwarf green markets
since 2012 has left dwarf green capitalism opened to the threat from green marxism ideas that
claim that dwarf green capitalism has to be overtaken and replaced by green socialism to put a
full stop to the destruction of nature as dwarf green capitalists are just pretending to be fully
environmentally responsible while destroying the environment.
Food for thoughts
1) Are dwarf green markets environmental pollution reduction markets? I think No, what
do you think?; 2) Is dwarf green economics the same as green economics? I think No, what do
you think; 3) Is climate change economics green economics? I think No, what do you think?; and
4) Are dwarf green markets clear by green market prices? I think No, what do you think?
Conclusions
First, it was pointed out that what separates the environmentally dirty traditional
economy and the environmental clean economy is an environmental externality or pollution
problem. Second, it was highlighted that to build the road to transition the environmentally dirty
traditional economy to the environmentally clean economy first we need to set up environmental
pollution reduction markets and then we need to close permanently as fast as possible the
renewable energy technology gap to transition the environmental pollution reduction market
towards the environmentally clean economy. And third, it was stressed that the road to transition
from the environmentally dirty traditional markets to environmentally clean markets requires to
first to set up green markets as the pollution reduction markets, and then close the renewable
energy technology gap by increasingly substituting permanently non-renewable energy sources
by renewable ones to lead the green economy towards the environmentally clean economy.
In general, it was shown that setting up pollution reduction markets like green markets,
and then close the renewable energy technology gap are the two steps needed to transition the
environmentally dirty traditional market towards the environmentally clean market, which is the
road to transition from environmentally dirty traditional markets to environmentally clean
markets that was never build in and since 2012.
References
Muñoz, Lucio, 2016a. Perfect Green Markets vrs Dwarf Green Markets: Did We Start
Trying to Solve the Environmental Crisis in 2012 With the Wrong Green Foot? If Yes,
How Can This Situation Be Corrected?. In: International Journal of Advanced Engineering
and Management Research(IJAEMR), Vol.1, Issue 6, Pp 389-406, August, India.
Muñoz, Lucio, 2016b. Beyond Traditional Market Thinking: What is the Structure of the
Perfect Green market?, In: International Journal of Science Social Studies Humanities and
Management (IJSSSHM), Vol. 2, No. 5., May, Ed. Dr. Maya Pant, India.
Muñoz, Lucio, 2022. Sustainability thought 170: What happens to the Thomas Kuhns
paradigm evolution loop under willful academic blindness? What are the implications of
this?, In: International Journal of Education Humanities and Social Science(IJEHSS), Vol.
5, No. 04, Pp. 251-260, ISSN: 2582-0745, India.
Smith, Adam, 1776. The Wealth of Nations, W. Strahan and T. Cadell, London, UK.
United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development(UNCSD), 2012a. Rio+20 Concludes
with Big Package of Commitments for Action and Agreement by World Leaders on Path for a
Sustainable Future, Press Release, June 20-22, New York, NY, USA.
United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development(UNCSD), 2012b. The Future We
Want, June 20-22, New York, NY, USA.
World Commission on Environment and Development(WCED), 1987. Our Common Future,
Oxford University Press, London, UK.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation:
Muñoz, Lucio, 2022. 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?, In: International Journal of
Education Humanities and Social Science(IJEHSS), Vol. 5, No. 05, Pp. 65-77, ISSN: 2582-
0745, India.
... The ideal of environmental pollution problem(EPO) separating the environmentally dirty economy(EDM) from the environmentally clean economy(ECLM) has been pointed out recently in simple terms (Muñoz 2022) as indicated in Figure 1 below: Figure 1 above tells us that there is an environmental pollution problem(EPO) separating the environmentally dirty economy(EDM) from the environmentally clean economy(ECLM); and therefore, to live under an environmentally clean market(ECLM) we need to get rid of the pollution production markets(PPM) like the environmentally dirty market(EDM). In other words, Figure 1 above indicates that we need to eliminate the environmental pollution problem(EPO) generated by the environmentally dirty market(EDM) fully to transform it into the environmentally clean market(ECLM), which means that the most climate change friendly action humanity can take is to transition to an environmental pollution free world under environmentally clean markets(ECLM). ...
... If we insert the green market solutions(GM) in Figure 5 above between the environmentally dirty market(EDM) and the environmentally clean market(ECLM), we can see that it internalizes the pollution problem(I[EPO]) created by the environmentally dirty market generating a new market, the green market(GM), that can be transition towards the environmentally clean economy as in green markets(GM) pollution reduction is a profit making opportunity, a transition framework that has been recently shared (Muñoz 2022); and which is summarized in Figure 6 below: Figure 6 above summarizes how the green market solution(GM) first internalizes the environmental pollution problem(I[EPO]) affecting the environmentally dirty market(EDM), shifting the environmentally dirty market(EDM) to the green market(GM) as indicated by the green arrow from EDM to GM; and then the green market(GM) can be transitioned towards the environmentally clean economy(ECLM) as indicated by the green arrow from GM to ECLM until the point where the environmental cost of production in the green market is zero(EM =0), point at which the green market becomes an environmentally clean market(GM = ECLM) as when EM = 0, then the green market price equals the environmentally clean economy market price(GMP = ECLMP). In other words, Figure 6 above helps us to see the following: i) the green market(GM) internalizes the environmental pollution problem EPO as indicated by the green arrow from EDM to DGM so that there is no remaining environmental pollution problem(REPO) as environmental cost of production are no longer externalized(REPO = 0) in green markets(GM); ii) environmental cost internalization means(I[EPO]) means that now environmental pollution reduction is a good profit making opportunity as the lowest the environmental cost of production, the lowest the green market price so more business activity takes place, and therefore, there will be a tendency to produce at the lowest green market price possible to maximize profits, meaning more consumption and more production of lower pollution content good and services at lower prices; and iii) And this indicates that a transition from green markets(GM) to environmentally clean markets(ECLM) is possible to the point that when the there is a green market price(GMP) where the environmental cost of pollution is zero(EM = 0), then the green market(GM) becomes an environmentally clean market(ECLM). ...
Article
Full-text available
There is an environmental pollution problem separating the environmentally dirty economy from the environmentally clean economy; and this is because the environmentally dirty economy operates through the use of environmental pollution production markets. Since 2012 Rio +20, the world has been using dwarf green markets to manage pollution generation; and this is because the dwarf green economy works through the use of environmental pollution management markets, markets that are apparently delinked from the idea of the need to transition as soon as possible from the environmentally dirty economy to the environmentally clean economy, a permanent climate change friendly move. Now imagine the world would have gone the way of environmental pollution reduction markets a la green markets instead of dwarf green markets since 2012 when facing environmental pollution, things could be different. And this raises the question: Can we transition from the environmentally dirty economy to the environmental clean economy with the use of green markets? If Yes, why? What are the implications of this? Among the goals of this paper is to provide answers to all those questions.
... The ideal of environmental pollution problem(EPO) separating the environmentally dirty economy(EDM) from the environmentally clean economy(ECLM) has been pointed out recently in simple terms (Muñoz 2022) as indicated in Figure 1 below: Figure 1 above tells us that there is an environmental pollution problem(EPO) separating the environmentally dirty economy(EDM) from the environmentally clean economy(ECLM); and therefore, to live under an environmentally clean market(ECLM) we need to get rid of the pollution production markets(PPM) like the environmentally dirty market(EDM). In other words, Figure 1 above indicates that we need to eliminate the environmental pollution problem(EPO) generated by the environmentally dirty market(EDM) fully to transform it into the environmentally clean market(ECLM), which means that the most climate change friendly action humanity can take is to transition to an environmental pollution free world under environmentally clean markets(ECLM). ...
... If we insert the green market solutions(GM) in Figure 5 above between the environmentally dirty market(EDM) and the environmentally clean market(ECLM), we can see that it internalizes the pollution problem(I[EPO]) created by the environmentally dirty market generating a new market, the green market(GM), that can be transition towards the environmentally clean economy as in green markets(GM) pollution reduction is a profit making opportunity, a transition framework that has been recently shared (Muñoz 2022); and which is summarized in Figure 6 below: Figure 6 above summarizes how the green market solution(GM) first internalizes the environmental pollution problem(I[EPO]) affecting the environmentally dirty market(EDM), shifting the environmentally dirty market(EDM) to the green market(GM) as indicated by the green arrow from EDM to GM; and then the green market(GM) can be transitioned towards the environmentally clean economy(ECLM) as indicated by the green arrow from GM to ECLM until the point where the environmental cost of production in the green market is zero(EM =0), point at which the green market becomes an environmentally clean market(GM = ECLM) as when EM = 0, then the green market price equals the environmentally clean economy market price(GMP = ECLMP). In other words, Figure 6 above helps us to see the following: i) the green market(GM) internalizes the environmental pollution problem EPO as indicated by the green arrow from EDM to DGM so that there is no remaining environmental pollution problem(REPO) as environmental cost of production are no longer externalized(REPO = 0) in green markets(GM); ii) environmental cost internalization means(I[EPO]) means that now environmental pollution reduction is a good profit making opportunity as the lowest the environmental cost of production, the lowest the green market price so more business activity takes place, and therefore, there will be a tendency to produce at the lowest green market price possible to maximize profits, meaning more consumption and more production of lower pollution content good and services at lower prices; and iii) And this indicates that a transition from green markets(GM) to environmentally clean markets(ECLM) is possible to the point that when the there is a green market price(GMP) where the environmental cost of pollution is zero(EM = 0), then the green market(GM) becomes an environmentally clean market(ECLM). ...
Preprint
Full-text available
There is an environmental pollution problem separating the environmentally dirty economy from the environmentally clean economy; and this is because the environmentally dirty economy operates through the use of environmental pollution production markets. Since 2012 Rio +20, the world has been using dwarf green markets to manage pollution generation; and this is because the dwarf green economy works through the use of environmental pollution management markets, markets that are apparently delinked from the idea of the need to transition as soon as possible from the environmentally dirty economy to the environmentally clean economy, a permanent climate change friendly move. Now imagine the world would have gone the way of environmental pollution reduction markets a la green markets instead of dwarf green markets since 2012 when facing environmental pollution, things could be different. And this raises the question: Can we transition from the environmentally dirty economy to the environmental clean economy with the use of green markets? If Yes, why? What are the implications of this? Among the goals of this paper is to provide answers to all those questions.
... a) The two ways to deal with the environmental pollution problem separating the environmentally dirty economy from the environmentally clean economy Ideas such as environmental pollution management markets and environmental pollution reduction markets can be useful to understand ways to address the environmental problem found between environmentally dirty economies and environmentally clean economies (Muñoz 2022) as well as to highlight the usefulness of these approaches in supporting an orderly transition in the future towards an environmentally clean world. These clean market transition ideas were introduced recently both in terms of dwarf green markets (Muñoz 2023a) and in terms of green markets (Muñoz 2023b), which summarized in Figure 1 below: Figure 1 above tells us that there are two ways of dealing with the environmental pollution problem (EPO) separating the environmentally dirty market (EDM) from the environmentally clean market (ECLM), namely environmental pollution management markets (EPOMM) and environmental pollution reduction markets (EPORM), the first one being a partial fix and the second one a full fix. ...
Article
Full-text available
Abstract There are two ways of dealing with the environmental pollution problem separating environmentally dirty markets from environmentally clean markets, using environmental pollution management markets and using environmental pollution reduction markets. If the goal is to transition from environmentally dirty economies to environmentally clean economies, then understanding which one is friendly and which one is not friendly with such a transition is important for science-based policy making and for understanding the rationale behind non-science-based policy making. And this makes the following topic and question relevant: Environmental pollution management markets versus environmental pollution reduction markets: Which one is environmentally clean economy transition friendly? Why? Among the goals of this paper is to provide answers to these questions. Resumen Hay dos maneras de abordar el problema de la contaminación ambiental separando los mercados ambientalmente sucios de los mercados ambientalmente limpios: utilizando mercados de gestión de la contaminación ambiental y utilizando mercados de reducción de la contaminación ambiental. Si el objetivo es hacer una transición de economías ambientalmente sucias a economías ambientalmente limpias, entonces entender cuál es amigable y cuál no con tal transición es importante para la formulación de políticas basadas en la ciencia y para comprender la lógica detrás de la formulación de políticas no basadas en la ciencia. Y esto hace que el siguiente tema y pregunta sean relevantes: Mercados de gestión de la contaminación ambiental versus mercados de reducción de la contaminación ambiental: ¿Cuál es amigable con la transición a una economía ambientalmente limpia? ¿Por qué? Uno de los objetivos de este artículo es proporcionar respuestas a estas preguntas.
... As indicated above we know that dwarf green markets and green markets work in opposite ways; and we know that we have been avoiding to shift from the perfect traditional market way of thinking to the perfect green market way of thinking since 2012 Rio + 20 Conference(UNCSD 2012a; 2012b) when we had a chance to orderly transition from the environmentally dirty economy to the environmentally clean economy, but we missed it. We missed the opportunity to go beyond business as always as the Brundtland Commission asked the world to do in 1987 (WCED 1987) to address the environmental issues embedding in traditional market thinking (Smith 1776), and therefore, the needed transition road from environmentally dirty economies to environmentally clean economies was never built then (Muñoz 2022). Imagine that suddenly developed countries decide to go full the green market way as they have the economic resources to invest in closing the renewable energy technology gap to transition green markets towards environmentally clean economies, where environmental pollution reduction is now a good profit making opportunity. ...
Article
Full-text available
We know that dwarf green markets and green markets work in opposite ways; and we know that we have been avoiding to shift from the perfect traditional market way of thinking to the perfect green market way of thinking since 2012 Rio + 20 Conference when we had a chance to orderly transition from the environmentally dirty economy to the environmentally clean economy, but we missed it. We missed the opportunity to go beyond business as always as the Brundtland Commission asked the world to do. Imagine that suddenly developed countries decide to go full the green market way as they have the economic resources needed to invest in closing the renewable energy technology gap to transition green markets towards environmentally clean economies, where environmental pollution reduction is now a good profit making opportunity. On the other hand, imaging that developing countries have no choice, but to stay within dwarf green markets as they do not have the economic resources to close their renewable energy technology gaps to transition to environmentally clean world. How would countries behave in a closed system environment in this bipolar world? How would they behave in an open system environment in this bipolar world? And this raises important questions such as: How the structure of a bipolar world where developing countries have dwarf green markets and develop countries have green markets would look like? Which world would collapse under an open system environment? What are the implications of this? Among the goals of this paper is to provide answers to the questions above.
... As indicated above we know that dwarf green markets and green markets work in opposite ways; and we know that we have been avoiding to shift from the perfect traditional market way of thinking to the perfect green market way of thinking since 2012 Rio + 20 Conference(UNCSD 2012a; 2012b) when we had a chance to orderly transition from the environmentally dirty economy to the environmentally clean economy, but we missed it. We missed the opportunity to go beyond business as always as the Brundtland Commission asked the world to do in 1987 (WCED 1987) to address the environmental issues embedding in traditional market thinking (Smith 1776), and therefore, the needed transition road from environmentally dirty economies to environmentally clean economies was never built then (Muñoz 2022). Imagine that suddenly developed countries decide to go full the green market way as they have the economic resources to invest in closing the renewable energy technology gap to transition green markets towards environmentally clean economies, where environmental pollution reduction is now a good profit making opportunity. ...
Preprint
We know that dwarf green markets and green markets work in opposite ways; and we know that we have been avoiding to shift from the perfect traditional market way of thinking to the perfect green market way of thinking since 2012 Rio + 20 Conference when we had a chance to orderly transition from the environmentally dirty economy to the environmentally clean economy, but we missed it. We missed the opportunity to go beyond business as always as the Brundtland Commission asked the world to do. Imaging that suddenly developed countries decide to go full the green market way as they have the economic resources needed to invest in closing the renewable energy technology gap to transition green markets towards environmentally clean economies, where environmental pollution reduction is now a good profit making opportunity. On the other hand, imaging that developing countries have no choice, but to stay within dwarf green markets as they do not have the economic resources to close their renewable energy technology gaps to transition to environmentally clean world. How would countries behave in a closed system environment in this bipolar world? How would they behave in an open system environment in this bipolar world? And this raises important questions such as: How the structure of a bipolar world where developing countries have dwarf green markets and develop countries have green markets would look like? Which world would collapse under an open system environment? What are the implications of this? Among the goals of this paper is to provide answers to the questions above.
... The thought of the existence of an environmental pollution problem(EPO) separating the environmentally dirty economy(EDM) from the environmentally clean economy(ECLM) has been stressed in the recent past (Muñoz 2022) as indicated in Figure 1 below: Figure 1 above tells us that there is an environmental pollution problem(EPO) separating the environmentally dirty economy(EDM) from the environmentally clean economy(ECLM); and therefore, to live under an environmentally clean market(ECLM) we need to get rid of the pollution production markets(POPM) like the environmentally dirty market(EDM). In other words, Figure 1 above indicates that we need to eliminate the environmental pollution problem(EPO) generated by the environmentally dirty market(EDM) fully to transform it into the environmentally clean market(ECLM), which means that the most climate change friendly action humanity can take right now is to transition to an environmental pollution free world under environmentally clean markets(ECLM). ...
Article
Full-text available
Abstract There is an environmental pollution problem separating the environmentally dirty economy from the environmentally clean economy; and this is because the environmentally dirty economy operates through the use of environmental pollution production markets and the environmentally clean economy works through no environmental pollution production markets. The environmental pollution problem between those markets can be addressed through environmental pollution reduction markets and through environmental pollution management markets depending on if you want to fully fix the environmental pollution problem or if you just want to patch it. Hence, there are 4 types of markets related to the environmental pollution issue, environmental pollution production markets, environmental pollution reduction markets, environmental pollution management markets, and no environmental production markets, all of which have different model structure and price structure as well as they all have a different impact on the environmental pollution issue while they work in the search for profits. And this raises important questions such as: What are environmental pollution production markets, environmental pollution reduction markets, environmental pollution management markets, and no environmental pollution markets? How do they work? What are the implications of this? Among the goals of this paper is to provide answers to the questions above. ------ ----- Resúmen Existe un problema de contaminación ambiental que separa la economía ambientalmente sucia de la economía ambientalmente limpia; Y esto se debe a que la economía ambientalmente sucia opera a través del uso de mercados de producción de contaminación ambiental y la economía ambientalmente limpia opera a través de mercados de producción sin contaminación ambiental. El problema de la contaminación ambiental entre esos mercados se puede abordar a través de los mercados de reducción de la contaminación ambiental y a través de los mercados de gestión de la contaminación ambiental, dependiendo de si desea solucionar completamente el problema de la contaminación ambiental o si solo desea parchearlo. Por lo tanto, hay 4 tipos de mercados relacionados con el problema de la contaminación ambiental, los mercados de producción de contaminación ambiental, los mercados de reducción de la contaminación ambiental, los mercados de gestión de la contaminación ambiental y los mercados de producción sin contaminación ambiental, todos los cuales tienen una estructura de modelo y una estructura de precios diferentes, así como también todos ellos tienen un impacto diferente en el tema de la contaminación ambiental mientras buscan maximizar las ganancias. Y esto plantea preguntas importantes como: ¿Qué son los mercados de producción de contaminación ambiental, los mercados de reducción de la contaminación ambiental, los mercados de gestión de la contaminación ambiental y los mercados de producción sin contaminación ambiental? ¿Cómo funcionan? ¿Cuáles son las implicaciones de esto? Entre los objetivos de este trabajo está dar respuesta a las preguntas anteriores.
... The thought of the existence of an environmental pollution problem(EPO) separating the environmentally dirty economy(EDM) from the environmentally clean economy(ECLM) has been stressed in the recent past (Muñoz 2022) as indicated in Figure 1 below: Figure 1 above tells us that there is an environmental pollution problem(EPO) separating the environmentally dirty economy(EDM) from the environmentally clean economy(ECLM); and therefore, to live under an environmentally clean market(ECLM) we need to get rid of the pollution production markets(POPM) like the environmentally dirty market(EDM). In other words, Figure 1 above indicates that we need to eliminate the environmental pollution problem(EPO) generated by the environmentally dirty market(EDM) fully to transform it into the environmentally clean market(ECLM), which means that the most climate change friendly action humanity can take right now is to transition to an environmental pollution free world under environmentally clean markets(ECLM). ...
Preprint
Full-text available
There is an environmental pollution problem separating the environmentally dirty economy from the environmentally clean economy; and this is because the environmentally dirty economy operates through the use of environmental pollution production markets and the environmentally clean economy works through no environmental pollution production markets. The environmental pollution problem between those markets can be addressed through environmental pollution reduction markets and through environmental pollution management markets depending on if you want to fully fix the environmental pollution problem or if you just want to patch it. Hence, there are 4 types of markets related to the environmental pollution issue, environmental pollution production markets, environmental pollution reduction markets, environmental pollution management markets, and no environmental production markets, all of which have different model structure and price structure as well as they all have a different impact on the environmental pollution issue while they work in the search for profits. And this raises important questions such as: What are environmental pollution production markets, environmental pollution reduction markets, environmental pollution management markets, and no environmental pollution markets? How do they work? What are the implications of this? Among the goals of this paper is to provide answers to the questions above.
... The ideal of environmental pollution problem(EPO) separating the environmentally dirty economy(EDM) from the environmentally clean economy(ECLM) has been pointed out recently in simple terms (Muñoz 2022) as indicated in Figure 1 below: Figure 1 above tells us that there is an environmental pollution problem(EPO) separating the environmentally dirty economy(EDM) from the environmentally clean economy(ECLM); and therefore, to live under an environmentally clean market(ECLM) we need to get rid of the pollution production markets(PPM) like the environmentally dirty market(EDM). In other words, Figure 1 above indicates that we need to eliminate the environmental pollution problem(EPO) generated by the environmentally dirty market(EDM) fully to transform it into the environmentally clean market(ECLM), which means that the most climate change friendly action humanity can take is to transition to an environmental pollution free world under environmentally clean markets(ECLM). ...
Article
Full-text available
There is an environmental pollution problem separating the environmentally dirty economy from the environmentally clean economy; and this is because the environmentally dirty economy operates through the use of environmental pollution production markets. Since 2012 Rio +20, the world has been using dwarf green markets to manage pollution generation; and this is because the dwarf green economy works through the use of environmental pollution management markets, markets that are apparently delinked from the idea of the need to transition as soon as possible from the environmentally dirty economy to the environmentally clean economy, a permanent climate change friendly move. And this raises the question: Can we transition from the environmentally dirty economy to the environmental clean economy with the use of dwarf green markets? If no, why not?. What are the implications of this? Among the goals of this paper is to provide answers to all those questions. Resúmen Existe un problema de contaminación ambiental que separa la economía ambientalmente sucia de la economía ambientalmente limpia; y esto se debe a que la economía ambientalmente sucia opera mediante el uso de mercados de producción de contaminación ambiental. Desde 2012 Río +20, el mundo ha estado utilizando mercados verdes falsos para gestionar la generación de contaminación; y esto se debe a que la economía verde falsa funciona mediante el uso de mercados de gestión de la contaminación ambiental, mercados que aparentemente están desvinculados de la idea de la necesidad de transitar lo antes posible de la economía ambientalmente sucia a la economía ambientalmente limpia, una acción permanente amigable al cambio climático. Y esto plantea la pregunta: ¿Podemos pasar de la economía ambientalmente sucia a la economía ambientalmente limpia con el uso de mercados verdes falsos? Si no, ¿por qué no? ¿Cuáles son las implicaciones de esto? Entre los objetivos de este trabajo está dar respuesta a todas esas preguntas.
Article
Full-text available
There are two ways of dealing with the environmental pollution problem separating environmentally dirty traditional markets from environmentally clean markets, using dwarf green markets and using green markets. If the goal is to transition from environmentally dirty traditional economies to environmentally clean economies, then understanding which one is friendly and which one is not friendly with such a transition is important for policy making based on science and for understanding the reasons behind non-science-based policy decision-making. And this makes the following topic and question relevant: Dwarf green markets versus green markets: Which one is environmentally clean economy transition friendly? Why? Among the goals of this paper is to provide answers to these questions.
Article
Full-text available
The article concludes that there is a road to transition from environmentally dirty traditional markets to environmentally clean markets that includes first setting up green markets as pollution reduction markets, and then we can lead those green markets towards environmentally clean markets slowly but surely by closing the renewable energy technology gap, but that road was not built in 2012 or since.
Article
Full-text available
Abstract Thomas Kuhn shared with the world the working of scientific revolutions, which can be simplified with six components in an evolution loop: the status quo paradigm, the abnormalities, the paradigm crisis, the possible paradigm failure and death, the academic consensus to change paradigm, and the paradigm shift. When consensus is reached, Kuhn implicitly assumes that academic integrity will ensure the actual implementation of the paradigm shift that has been agreed upon to stimulate the growth of knowledge as it is difficult to think that true scientists will join the academic consensus to change paradigm and then go later in a way i) that blocks the growth of scientific knowledge that comes from closing paradigm shift knowledge gaps, and ii) that coexist with the paradigm crisis they are trying to solve, but under willful academic blindness what in Kuhn’s loop is inconceivable actually happens. And this raises the question, what happens to the Thomas Kuhn’s paradigm evolution loop under willful academic blindness? What are the implications of this? Key concepts Scientific revolutions, status quo model, model abnormalities, paradigm crisis, paradigm death, academic consensus, paradigm shifts, academic integrity, willful academic blindness, scientific truth, academic facts, alternative academic facts, golden paradigm, flawed paradigm, new paradigms, paradigm evolution loop.
Article
Full-text available
We shifted from the traditional market model to the green market model in 2012 to address the environmental crisis head on, but apparently we started with the wrong green foot, a dwarf green foot. We are supposed to be dealing with the environmental crisis through perfect green markets, environment and economy partnership based perfect markets where environmental issues are internalized in the pricing mechanism of the market, the green market price. For this reason the green market is cleared by the green market price. Therefore, the perfect green market thinking was the right green foot to use from the beginning to address the environmental crisis directly as we shifted from perfect traditional market thinking to perfect green market thinking, but instead of doing this it seems like those leading the paradigm shift since 2012 have moved away from perfect green market thinking and run towards dwarf green market thinking, a world where markets are unconnected to the green market price mechanism as they are still treating environmental issues as externalities. And this is a clear violation of the theory-practice consistency principle, the traditional perfect market can be cleared only by the traditional market price and therefore the perfect green market can only be cleared by the green market price, and if this is not the case, then you have a dwarf market or distorted market, an inefficient market. In other words those leading the development agenda seem to be using dwarf green market instead of perfect green market thinking in response to the environmental crisis; and therefore we are dealing with this crisis in a very inefficient and distorting way as environmental externalities are not yet internalized. The discussion above raises the questions: Did we start trying to solve the environmental crisis in 2012 with the wrong green foot? If yes, why and which are the implications of this? And how can this situation be corrected? Among the goals of this paper is to provide an answer to those questions.
Article
Full-text available
We are now living in the world of green markets, yet we seem not to be able to see that the paradigm shift from the traditional market to green markets has created a green market knowledge gap. And it is this knowledge gap that apparently is limiting the ability of governments(developed and underdeveloped) and institutions(local and global) alike to set up green markets and implement green market based sustainable development programs such as low carbon based development. For example, we know what the structure of the traditional perfect market is; and the paradigm shift raises the question what is the structure then of the perfect green market if the perfect traditional market idea was left behind? One of the goals of this paper is to provide an answer to this question.
The Wealth of Nations, W. Strahan and T
  • Adam Smith
Smith, Adam, 1776. The Wealth of Nations, W. Strahan and T. Cadell, London, UK.