ArticlePDF Available

Sustainability thought 162: Can we transition from the environmentally dirty economy to the environmental clean economy with the use of dwarf green markets? If no, why not?

Authors:
  • Independent QLC researcher

Abstract and Figures

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.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Citation:
Muñoz, Lucio, 2023. Sustainability thought 162: Can we transition from the
environmentally dirty economy to the environmental clean economy with the use of dwarf
green markets? If no, why not?, In: CEBEM-REDESMA Boletin, Año 17, 2, La Paz,
Bolivia.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sustainability thought 162: Can we transition from the environmentally dirty economy to
the environmental clean economy with the use of dwarf green markets? If no, why not?
By
Lucio Muñoz*
* Independent Qualitative Comparative Researcher / Consultant, Vancouver, BC, Canada Email: munoz@interchange.ubc.ca
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. 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.
Key concepts
Traditional market, Green market, dwarf green market, dirty markets, clean markets,
environmental pollution problem, pollution production market, pollution reduction market,
pollution management market, environmentally dirty economy, environmentally clean economy,
paradigm transition, paradigm shift
Introduction
a) The problem separating environmentally dirty markets from environmentally clean
markets
i) The environmental pollution problem(EPO) in simple terms
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).
ii) The environmental pollution problem(EPO) graphically
We can transform the information in Figure 1 into graphical information in terms of
supply and demand of the environmentally dirty market(EDM) as summarized in Figure 2
below:
Figure 2 above tells us the following: i) that there is a environmentally dirty
market(EDM) at point 1 where the environmentally dirty supply(EDMS) meets the
environmentally dirty demand D determining the environmentally dirty market quantity(EDMQ)
to be produced and consumed at the environmentally dirty market price EDMP; ii) that this
market generates environmental pollution EPO going from point 1 to point 4; and iii) that as long
as this pollution generation problem(EPO) exist there will be no environmentally clean
markets(ECLM). Hence, the best climate change friendly policy based on Figure 2 above is to
eliminate the environmental pollution problem(EPO) generated by the environmentally dirty
market(EDM) at point 1 to transition it towards the environmentally clean economy(ECLM).
iii) The expansion of the environmental pollution(EPO) generation problem
If the environmentally dirty market expands from EDM to EDM1 because there is a
decrease in the environmentally dirty market price from EDMP to EDMP1, then the
environmentally dirty market supply will shift from EDMS to EDMS1 expanding pollution
levels as indicated in Figure 3 below:
We can see in Figure 3 above that when the environmentally dirty market expands from
point 1 to point 2 the pollution problem(EPO) expands from point 4 to point 1 to point 4 to point
2 as the new environmental pollution problem(NEPO) is greater than the original environmental
pollution problem(EPO) so that NEPO > EPO by the distance from point 1 to point 2 represented
by the blue arrow. In other words, as the environmentally dirty market(EDM) expands more
environmental pollution(EPO) is generated.
b) Ways of dealing with the environmental pollution(EPO) problem
There are two possible ways of addressing the environmental pollution problem(EPO),
one is through setting up environmental pollution management markets(EPOMM) if we just
want to patch the pollution generation problem and live permanently under them; and the other
one is setting up environmental pollution reduction markets(EPORM) if we want to fully fix the
pollution problem and transitioning it to the environmentally clean economy(ECLM), which are
summarized in Figure 4 below:
We can see in Figure 4 above that environmental pollution management
markets(EPOMM) deal with a portion of the pollution generation problem(EPO) created by the
environmentally dirty market(EDM) while environmental pollution reduction markets(EPORM)
deal with the whole of the environmental pollution problem(EPO) through problem
internalization. In other words, environmental pollution management markets(EPOMM)
addresses the environmental pollution generation problem(EPO) through pollution management
theory where, once markets are in place, pollution reduction is not a profitable business
incentive as pollution management costs are set externally while environmental pollution
reduction markets(EPORM) deal with the environmentally pollution problem through perfect
pollution reduction market theory where, once markets are in place, pollution reduction is an
excellent business opportunity as it leads to producing at the lowest pollution reduction market
price possible.
c) Dealing with the environmental pollution problem though dwarf green markets
Since the 2012 Rio + 20 conference(UNCSD 2012a; UNCSD 2012b) a process of green
market paradigm shift avoidance has been taken place as dwarf green markets(DGM) are being
used as environmental pollution management markets(EPOMM), where the environmental
pollution problem(EPO) generated by the environmentally dirty market(EDM) is being patched
with the use of dwarf green markets as indicated in Figure 5 below:
Figure 5 above indicates that dwarf green markets(DGM) are being used to manage the
environmental problem(EPO) generated by the environmentally dirty market(EDM) as pollution
generation takes place. Notice that the structure of the environmentally dirty market(EDM) in
Figure 5 above is similar to the market structure of the environmentally dirty traditional
market(ETM) of Adam Smith(Smith 1776) when under social externality neutrality assumptions
so that EDM = ETM, which means that there is an environmental pollution problem(EPO)
separating the environmentally dirty traditional market(ETM) from the environmentally clean
market(ECLM), and this means too that the environmentally dirty traditional market(ETM) can
also be patched with the use of dwarf green markets(DGM).
d) The need to understand whether or not we can transition to the environmentally clean
economy through the use of dwarf green markets
In summary, based on the discussion above 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(UNCSD 2012a: UNCSD 2012b), the world
has been using dwarf green markets to manage the environmental pollution generation problem
highlighted in 1987 by the Brundtland Commission(WCED 1987); 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 and which work in
opposite ways as perfect green markets do(Muñoz 2016; Muñoz 2019). 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.
Goals of this paper
a) To highlight how dwarf green markets works in framework form and graphically; b)
To point out how the expansion of dwarf green markets work analytically and graphically; c) To
stress the structure of the problem of that comes along when leading humanity to living inside
the environmentally dirty economy under environmental pollution management and climate
change permanently with no way to transition to the environmentally clean economy; and d) To
share the structure of the future of humanity under permanent bearable climate change in the
eyes of those keeping the environmentally dirty economy alive.
Methodology
First the terminology used in this paper is shared. Second, the working of the dwarf
green market is shared in Figure and its nature described. Third, the working of the dwarf green
market is pointed out graphically and its implications stressed. Fourth, the working of dwarf
green markets under environmental pollution management expansion is indicated in detail as
well as its main implications. Fifth, the structure of the world under permanent dwarf green
market based climate change dynamics with no way to transition to environmentally clean
markets is presented and its implications discussed. Sixth, the structure of a world under
permanent bearable climate change as apparently envisioned by those keeping the
environmentally dirty economy alive is indicated as well as its implications. 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 problem
EPO = Environmental pollution problem E[C] = Environmental cost externalization
I[c] = Environmental cost internalization CLM = The clean market
EPORM = Environmental pollution reduction market DM = The dirty market
ECLM = Environmentally clean market DGM = Dwarf green market
POPM = Pollution production markets EPOPM = Environmental pollution production market
PORM = Pollution reduction markets EPORM = Environmental pollution reduction markets
RPO = Remaining pollution problem REPO = Remaining environmental pollution problem
NEPO = New environmental problem DGMP = Dwarf green market price
GMP = Green market price EM = Environmental margin
TMP = Traditional market price EDMP = Environmentally dirty market price
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operational concepts, relevant market structures and 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.
26) Pollution production market, a market operating under distorted market pricing.
27) Environmental pollution production market, a market operating under environmentally
distorted market pricing
26) Pollution reduction market, a market operating under a corrected distorted market price.
27) Environmental pollution reduction market, a market operating under an environmentally
corrected distorted market price.
28) Pollution management market, a market operating at a pollution management cost led
market price.
29) Environmental pollution management market, a market operating at an environmental
pollution cost led market price.
30) Sustainability market, the one cleared by the sustainability market price.
31) Dwarf green market, the market cleared by the dwarf green market price.
B) 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.
C) 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 working of the dwarf green market in simple terms
If we insert the dwarf green market solutions(DGM) in Figure 5 above between the
environmentally dirty market(EDM) and the environmental pollution problem(EPO) it generates
we can see how the environmental pollution management framework works in simple terms, as
shown in Figure 6 below:
Figure 6 above helps us to see the following: i) the dwarf green market(DGM) manages a
portion of the total environmental pollution EPOM as indicated by the green arrow from EDM to
DGM while still externalizing the remaining portion of pollution generated REPO as indicated
by the green arrow from DGM to REPO; ii) this means that there is still a remaining
environmental pollution problem(REPO) separating the environmentally dirty market(EDM)
under pollution management from the environmentally clean economy(ECLM); and iii) this
therefore indicates that the dwarf green market(DGM) breaks the environmental pollution
problem(EPO) into pollution under management(EPOM) and remaining environmental
pollution(REPO), where EPO = EPOM + REPO and where EPOM < REPO. In other words,
Figure 6 above highlights that there is still a remaining environmental pollution problem(REPO)
affecting the sustainability of dwarf green markets and of climate change objectives as costs that
are externalized are costs that are not accounted for.
The working of the dwarf green markets graphically
We can transform the information in Figure 6 above into graphical information as shown
in Figure 7 below:
We can extract the following relevant information from Figure 7 above: i) At point 1 we
have environmentally dirty market(EDM) where the environmentally dirty supply EDMS meets
the demand D at the environmentally dirty market price EDMP; ii) At point 1 we have the
environmental problem(EPO) generated by the environmentally dirty market(EDM) as indicated
by the black arrow that goes from point 1 to point 4; iii) At point 3 we have the dwarf green
market(DGM) where the dwarf green market supply DGMS meets the demand D at the dwarf
green market price DGMP; iv) At point 3 a portion of the environmental pollution(EPOM) is
being managed while the remaining environmental pollution(REPO) is still being externalized;
iv) If the environmentally dirty market(EDM) is placed under dwarf green markets(DGM) to
manage a portion of the pollution generated(EPOM) then it shifts from point 1 to point 3 as
indicated by the blue arrow; and v) hence when setting up dwarf green markets(DGM) we still
leave active the remaining environmental pollution problem(REPO) preventing the dwarf green
markets(DGM) or the environmentally dirty market under environmental pollution management
to tend towards environmentally clean markets(ECLM).
The working of dwarf green markets under pollution management expansions
If we expand environmental pollution management consistent with the situation in Figure
7 above, then the environmental pollution cost associated with the dwarf green market or dwarf
green market cost margin(DEM) increases leading to a higher dwarf green market price and to
decreases in production and consumption and therefore, decreases in environmental pollution as
indicated in Figure 8 below:
We can appreciate in Figure 8 above the following: i) that when we expand the dwarf
green market(DGM) from point 3 to point 5 as a result of an increased in the pollution
management cost leading to a dwarf green market price increase from DGMP to DGMP1 we are
then reducing environmental pollution from point 3 to point 5 as indicated by the red arrow while
still leaving a remaining environmental pollution problem(REPO1) as indicated by the red arrow
from point 5 to point 4; ii) that the dwarf market price increase due to the increase in the
pollution management cost leads to a reduction in production and consumption from DGMQ to
DGMQ1, which corresponds to the decrease in environmental pollution from point 3 to point 5;
and iii) that as there will be a remaining environmental problem(REPO1) at the dwarf green
market(DGM1) located at point 5 and this problem will continue to affect its sustainability. We
can also see in Figure 8 above that the environmental pollution problem(EPO) generated by the
environmentally dirty market(EDM) at point 1 is greater than the remaining environmental
problem of the first dwarf green market(DGM) at point 3, which is greater in turn than the
remaining environmental problem of the second dwarf green market(DGM1) at point 5 so that
EPO > REPO > REPO1 as environmental pollution management expands.
Implication:
There will always be a remaining environmental pollution problem preventing dwarf
green markets or the environmental dirty markets under environmental pollution management
from ever becoming environmentally clean markets.
The nature of the problem of leading humanity to living inside the environmentally dirty
economy under environmental pollution management or dwarf green markets
When the decision that was made in 2012 Rio + 20(UNCSD 2012a: UNCSD 2012b) led
not to green markets, but to dwarf green markets, then that decision meant a future for humanity
under climate change with minimal emissions in ways unconnected with the remaining
environmental pollution problem(REPO) created in the process and delinked from the need to
one day transition to the environmentally clean economy as indicated in Figure 9 below:
We can clearly see in Figure 9 above that keeping the environmentally dirty
economy(EDM) alive through the use of dwarf green markets(DGM) to manage some of the
pollution problem(EPOM) created moves the world towards climate change in a way which has
no transition path to environmentally clean economies(ECLM) as remaining environmental
pollution(REPO) is still being externalized as indicated by the green arrow from DGM to REPO,
which keeps the dwarf green market delinked from the environmentally clean economy(ECLM)
as shown by broken green arrow from REPO to ECLM. Hence, the remaining environmental
problem(REPO) affects the sustainability of the dwarf green market(DGM) or of the
environmentally dirty market(EDM) under environmental pollution management and of climate
change plans in ways that can never lead to a world under environmentally clean
economies(ECLM) as indicated by the broken arrow from REPO to ECLM in Figure 9 above.
The future of humanity in the eyes of those keeping the dirty economy alive
As climate change events and impacts became more severe and common since
environmental pollution has still been increasing under dwarf green market management since
2012, a fact consistent with the expectation of the remaining environmental pollution
problem(REPO) created when setting up dwarf green markets now actions and policies have
been directed at climate change mitigation, adaptation, and resiliance, including during COP27
when a climate change fund to help less developed countries to bear the consequences of climate
change has now been established(UNFCCC 2022), which means that attention has been given to
create a world under permanent bearable climate change, a world summarized in Figure 10
below:
We can clearly appreciate in Figure 10 above the following: i) that those who decided to
keep the environmentally dirty economy(EDM) alive through the use of dwarf green
markets(DGM) to manage some of the pollution problem(EPOM) created are attempting to bring
the world towards permanent bearable climate change in a way that has no transition path to
environmentally clean economies(ECLM) as remaining environmental pollution(REPO) is still
being externalized and it will continue to be externalized; and ii) this means that environmentally
clean economies(ECLM) will never see the day in a world where a portion of the environmental
pollution associated with business activity is being managed while the rest is being externalized
as an ongoing remaining environmental pollution problem(REPO). A disconnect indicated by the
broken green arrow from REPO to ECLM. Hence, a transition from the environmentally dirty
market(EDM) to the environmentally clean market(ECLM) through the use of dwarf green
markets(DGM) is not possible as indicated in Figure 10 above as there will always be a
remaining environmental pollution problem blocking that transition.
Food for thoughts
a) In the world of perfect green markets, are green producers and green consumers
leaders in development? I think Yes, what do you think?; b) In the world of dwarf green markets,
are dwarf producers and dwarf consumers followers in development? I think Yes, what do you
think?; and c) In the world of perfect traditional markets, are traditional producers and traditional
consumers leaders in development? I think Yes, what do you think?
Conclusions
First, it was shown by mean of Figure and graphs that when we set up dwarf green
markets there still remains a remaining environmental pollution problem keeping it unconnected
to the transition path towards environmentally clean markets. Second, it was pointed out that as
dwarf green markets expand due to an increase in the pollution management cost dwarf
production and dwarf consumption, and therefore environmental pollution fall, but there still
remains an environmental pollution problem preventing it from ever taking the form of an
environmentally clean economy on its own. Third, it was indicated that when the decision was
made in 2012 to go dwarf green market to address the environmental pollution problem as it is
being generated that meant bringing humanity through a permanent pollution generation-climate
change process disconnected from the path towards an environmentally clean economy. And
finally, it was stressed that as environmental pollution has continued to increase under pollution
management decisions makers apparently are leading humanity towards a world of permanent
but bearable climate change as they have been enacting and implementing policies for
adaptation, mitigation, resilience, and monetary help, an approach disconnected from perfect
green market theory and with the need to transition to the environmentally clean economy. In
general, it was shown that we cannot transition the environmentally dirty economy to the
environmentally clean economy using dwarf green markets because the use of dwarf green
markets stills leaves active a remaining environmental pollution problem affecting its
sustainability and affecting climate change plans.
References
Muñoz, Lucio, 2016. 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, 2019. 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, In: Global Journal of Management and
Business Research: E Marketing, Volume 19, Issue 4, Version 1.0 , Framingham,
Massachusetts, USA.
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.
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.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC), 2022. COP27 Reaches
Breakthrough Agreement on New Loss and Damage Fund for Vulnerable Countries,
November 20, UN Climate Press Release, Bonn, Germany.
World Commission on Environment and Development(WCED), 1987. Our Common Future,
Oxford University Press, London, UK.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation:
Muñoz, Lucio, 2023. Sustainability thought 162: Can we transition from the
environmentally dirty economy to the environmental clean economy with the use of dwarf
green markets? If no, why not?, In: CEBEM-REDESMA Boletin, Año 17, 2, La Paz,
Bolivia.
... As pointed out recently (Muñoz 2023) since the 2012 Rio + 20 conference(UNCSD 2012a; UNCSD 2012b) the environmental pollution issue(EPO) has been dealt with the use of dwarf green markets(DGM) as environmental pollution management markets(EPOMM), where the environmental pollution problem(EPO) generated by the environmentally dirty market(EDM) is being patched with the use of dwarf green markets leaving them permanently delinked from any hope to transition towards environmentally clean markets. Had the world not avoided fixing the environmental pollution problem(EPO) since 2012 Rio +20 and they would use green markets(GM) from the beginning the structure of the green market solution to the environmental problem would have looked like the one summarized in Figure 5 below: Figure 5 above simply states how green markets(GM) can be used to address the environmental pollution problem(EPO) separating the environmentally dirty economy(EDM) from the environmentally clean economy(ECLM). ...
... Since 2012 Rio +20(UNCSD 2012a: UNCSD 2012b), the world has been using dwarf green markets to manage the environmental pollution generation problem highlighted in 1987 by the Brundtland Commission (WCED 1987); 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 and just focused on managing and bearing the problem(UNFCCC 2022), and which work in opposite ways as perfect green markets do (Muñoz 2016;Muñoz 2019). It has recently been pointed out that we cannot transition from the environmentally dirty economy to the environmentally clean economy using dwarf green markets because their use leaves a remaining environmental pollution problem active (Muñoz 2023), which keeps them permanently away from the world of environmentally clean markets. 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. ...
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.
... Ideas such as dwarf green markets as environmental pollution management markets and green markets as environmental pollution reduction markets can be useful to understand ways to address the environmental pollution problem found between environmentally dirty traditional economies and environmentally clean economies as well as to highlight the usefulness of these approaches in supporting an orderly transition in the future towards an environmentally clean world ( Muñoz, 2024a). These clean market transition ideas were introduced in general as pollution management markets and as pollution reduction markets transitions (Muñoz, 2024b) and in particular as both in terms of dwarf green markets ideas (Muñoz, 2023a) and in terms of green markets ideas (Muñoz, 2023b). These clean market transition ideas in terms of environmentally dirty traditional markets (EDTM) are summarized in Fig. 1 as recently shared (Muñoz, 2024a): Fig. 1 tells us a) that there is an environmental pollution problem (EPO) separating the environmentally dirty traditional market (EDTM) from the environmentally clean market (ECLM) and b) that there are two ways of dealing with that environmental pollution problem (EPO), namely dwarf green markets (DGM) and green markets (GM), the first one being an environmental patch and the second one being a full fix. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
Clean market transition ideas were introduced in general as pollution management markets and as pollution reduction markets transition, in particular dwarf green markets ideas and green markets ideas. There is an environmental pollution production problem separating environmentally dirty traditional markets from environmentally clean markets and there are two ways of dealing with this problem, using dwarf green markets and 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 to such transition is important for science-based policy-making and for understanding the reasons behind non-science-based policy decision-making. This makes the following questions relevant: Which markets are environmentally clean economy transition friendly, dwarf green markets or green markets? Why? Among the goals of this paper is to provide answers to these questions. It has been observed that green markets (GM) are environmentally clean economy transition friendly as they create a profitable green margin reduction path that transitions green markets (GM) towards environmentally clean markets (ECLM), partially or fully, step by step. Hence, using green markets (GM) shows a development road can be created that leads at the end to environmentally clean markets. In conclusion, dwarf green market solutions are partial solutions that lead to permanent environmental market failure, which prevents them from being environmentally clean economy transition friendly, and moves them away from the transition goal as environmental cost externalization is still taking place by means of the remaining environmental margin.
... a) The two ways to deal with the environmental pollution problem separating the environmentally dirty traditional economy from the environmentally clean economy Ideas such as dwarf green markets as environmental pollution management markets and green markets as environmental pollution reduction markets can be useful to understand ways to address the environmental pollution problem found between environmentally dirty traditional economies and environmentally clean economies 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 in general as pollution management markets and as pollution reduction markets transitions and in particular as both in terms of dwarf green markets ideas (Muñoz 2023a) and in terms of green markets ideas (Muñoz 2023b). These clean market transition ideas in terms of environmentally dirty traditional markets (EDTM) are 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 traditional market (EDTM) from the environmentally clean market (ECLM), namely dwarf green markets (DGM) and green markets (GM), the first one being an environmental patch and the second one being a full fix. ...
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.
... 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.
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.
Article
Full-text available
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.
Article
Full-text available
From the time of Adam Smith(1776) to 2012 UNCSD Rio +20 conference we have lived in a world where government intervention in markets was not welcomed, except in very specific circumstances such as market failures, a feeling at the heart of free-market thinking. From 2012 to now June 2019, we have slowly moved to a world where permanent government intervention is not just welcomed, but also encouraged such as when governments directly intervene in markets to deal with environmental issues. This is indeed a move away from free-market thinking, and towards non-free market thinking as it represents a shift from green market solutions to dwarf green market solutions. In other words, the promotion and implementation of dwarf green market thinking like carbon pricing really require a departure from traditional economic thinking, a practice that is now accepted by today's economists. And this raises questions such as: Has traditional economic thinking been flipped in practice when dealing with the environmental issue? If yes, what are the implications of this in terms of consumption and production in dwarf green markets? How are dwarf green markets then be expected to work?
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.
The Wealth of Nations, W. Strahan and T
  • Adam Smith
Smith, Adam, 1776. The Wealth of Nations, W. Strahan and T. Cadell, London, UK.