When the paradigm shifted from the traditional market thinking to the green market thinking in 2012 a green market knowledge gap was created which may explain why the initial approach to deal with environmental issues through the market appears so far in theory and in practice  to be outside perfect green market thinking and therefore, away from green market optimality....

Under the perfect green market, environmental issues are endogenous issues, not externalities.  Under dwarf green markets they are still treated as externalities...., but this are not true markets....

The problem is that by not following perfect green market thinking or green microeconomics and green macroeconomics mainstream economists and decision makers will try to solve environmental issues through dwarf markets leading in the long term to green market failure as they will keep production and consumption at levels outside optimal green market production level, and outside the green market price mechanism...

For example, the voluntary sustainability standards are keeping the green economy producing at an inefficient level from the perfect green market point of view as it can be seen in the 2014 thinking of IISD/IIED summarize in Figure 1.1 in the document below, which seems to be the same thinking supporting green markets at the UN, UNDESA, UNCSD, UNDEP, UNEP and so on;

see below link:

http://www.iisd.org/ssi//sustainability-standards-and-the-green-economy/

Can you see what is wrong in this figure 1.1 in this FRAMEWORK in terms of green market efficiency, green market price, and the type of market this voluntary sustainability standard is operating at(e.g. true market or dwarf market)?.

Are environmental issues in this framework endogenous or exogenous?.

What can be done to bring voluntary sustainability standards within the perfect green market thinking?

What do you think?

More Lucio Muñoz's questions See All
Similar questions and discussions