Content uploaded by Lucio Muñoz
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Lucio Muñoz on Jan 28, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not 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?
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.
Figures - uploaded by Lucio Muñoz
Author content
All figure content in this area was uploaded by Lucio Muñoz
Content may be subject to copyright.
... 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. ...
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.