Centralized authority is a top down regulatory scheme. The centralized socialized authoritarian societies have been favored in this non free market approach.

The problem with this approach is that it never really works because individual initiative is stifled.

A hybrid approach beyond a simple top down economic push is a hybrid scheme such as cap and trade. This has been used with some success in the reduction of Sulfur emissions.

The world at present is increasingly dissatisfied with centralized approaches which seem to create more issues than they resolve over time. 

The ability to have truly free trade is not very apparent on the world stage as virtually all economies have massive interventions and there is little true freedom for either the participants or the consumers.

For green economies to work best I believe a decentralized non interventionist approach could work and the top down regulatory approach will not.

Perhaps hybrid approaches and the openess to competing stories will show the way for our future approaches. 

For free markets to work optimally all players need to be well supplied with all information they need this is also not a reality presently. 

I would conclude that our best future would occur with non centralized economies which can serve as alternative models. With free information the more successful models would dominate over time and lead to improved futures for our World. 

Lucio, In my opinion the Dwarf Green Market situation you refer to is actually the invisible free market forces described by Smith which are assigning values or prices to previously unpriced intangibles and natural capital 'owned' by us all.

Regards,

-Steve

Dear Paul, thanks for taking the time to write your comment....I tried to provide some background to support a clear question on whether or not the old capitalist world now that they shifted to green markets has abandoned the idea of free markets....What for the moment I think they are doing since soon after 2012....I was expected  yes or not and why replies. to keep it simple...

if they were implementing green markets since 2012 as they should have done, they would be internalizing environmental cost in the price mechanism of green markets and then you create the conditions for free green markets, where green micro-economics/the theory of the environmentally responsible firm and consumer; and green macro-economics/the theory of the environmentally friendly economy rule....And you have green producer and green consumers interacting to determine the green price and an efficient green quantify......

But they are not doing that, they are using carbon based pricing or low carbon based markets, which are not green markets and therefore they operate under non-free market conditions and outside true green economics....aim at the internalization of environmental externalities as called by perfect green market theory....

Since all the countries signatures of the 2015 Paris agreenment have to follow the UN lead away from green markets after they supposedly shifted to green markets in 2012/UNCSD Rio +20 that means for the moment they are giving their backs to the long held ideas of "free markets are the best''''.....The use of non-green markets or dwarf green markets tells clearly....Pushing companies and consumers is better than free codependent choice....non-free, non-green markets are better than free green markets....

So giving this background, do you think they have moved away from free market thinking if they are not using perfect green market thinking to guide their ideas, yes or not and why?

I appreciate your comment Paul

This article has some ideas you can you as food for thoughts Paul

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?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305994500_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

Article Perfect Green Markets vrs Dwarf Green Markets: Did We Start ...

Good day Steven, good day.

The traditional market and green markets are two totally different markets both based on perfect market thinking and free market thinking....

There is an invisible hand in traditional markets and there is a green invisible hand in green markets.....there is a trickle down expectation in traditional perfect markets and there is a green trickle down expectation in  perfect green markets....

The Adam Smith invisible hand does not work in green markets, the green invisible hand does....traditional micro-economic and traditional macro-economics do not work in green markets, you need then green microeconomics and green macro economicis....

In the traditional market traditional producers and consumers interact to determine the traditional market price....in green markets green producers and green consumers interact to determine the green market price...Green markets are here because Adam Smith's world is now dead....

Dwarf green markets are markets placed below the green market price so they are not connected to green prices as they are focused on managing environmental externalities instead of internalizing environmental externalities.....

Back to the question, does the use of dwarf green markets means at least for the moment good by to free market thinking?

Dear Steven, you may find the ideas in this paper interesting and you can use them as food for thoughts:

Beyond Traditional Market Thinking: What is the Structure of the Perfect Green market?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/302025169_Beyond_Traditional_Market_Thinking_What_is_the_Structure_of_the_Perfect_Green_market

Have a nice day

Article Beyond Traditional Market Thinking: What is the Structure of...

Very interesting, Lucio. Thanks for providing that information; I will review and comment.

Regards,

-Steve

Dear Lucio, I think that the rationale behind carbon pricing (or other alternative greenhouse gas emissions mitigation instruments) is based on "market failures" correcting interventions. Markets do work (and should be left without intervention). However, when market failures exist (information asymmetries, public goods, externalities, etc.), there is a case for public interventions. In principle, carbon pricing aims at correcting an environmental externality (global warming) and stabilize a global public good (climate). Moreover, thinking about a common global good (stable climate), climate change mitigation interventions do have a north. On the other hand, there are "government failures" as well. Sometimes government interventions are worst that the market failures they intend to correct. Political economy reasons make us be cautious about how and when an intervention would work. Interest groups and collective action can (and usually do) change the scope of intervention to favor themselves (against social interest or a social welfare maximizing goal). I think your work is very interesting. The idea of "perfect" green markets is something to be further developed and should be contrasted with "traditional" economic theory. 

Dear Luis, thank for commenting.

I asked that question because we shifted in 2012/RIO +20/UNCSD to green markets, green growth, green economy, and green invisible hand....free partnership economy-environment markets, a world where environmental issues are endogenous market issues.....we did not shift to dwarf green markets, non-free markets, where instead of internalization environmental costs in the price mechanism of the traditional market to shift it to green markets we treat them as they were in the previous traditional market as externalities.....

As you know green markets are science based markets, dwarf markets are not as dwarf markets are violating the theory-practice consistency principle...and therefore the dwarf price, the producers, the consumers, the quantity produced and consumed are not linking to green markets....you will need constant ongoing government intervention to push producers and consumers to be environmentally friendly which means goodbye to Adam Smith's free market thinking....Now in Canada there is officially a carbon tax federally of $10 CAN per ton signaling a serious inclination by those in the 2015 Paris agreement to go this way....the non-science based way...

But it all makes sense Luis if you look at it as:

a) Adam Smith's traditional market model was a fully distorted model as it assumed social and environmental externality neutrality, which allowed it to produce at the lowest cost possible feeding overproduction/over consumption, a model in place from 1776 to 1987 as nobody neither novel price winners had criticized Adam Smith's assumptions and call for change despite the environmental and social crises getting more difficult to hide....now we are going backwards, trying to fix Adam Smith's motel:

What If Markets Have Always Been Distorted? Would It Then Be a Good Fix to Add Fair Trade Margins to Correct Distorted Agricultural Market Prices?.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281244562_What_If_Markets_Have_Always_Been_Distorted_Would_It_Then_Be_a_Good_Fix_to_Add_Fair_Trade_Margins_to_Correct_Distorted_Agricultural_Market_Prices

Complex and Man-made Markets: Are We Currently Approaching Sustainability in a Backward and More Chaotic Way in Terms of Economic Thinking?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281277199_Complex_and_Man-made_Markets_Are_We_Currently_Approaching_Sustainability_in_a_Backward_and_More_Chaotic_Way_in_Terms_of_Economic_Thinking

Did Adam Smith Miss the Chance to State the Goal and Structure of Sustainability Markets in His Time? If Yes, Which Could Be Some of the Possible Reasons Behind That?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298476400_Did_Adam_Smith_Miss_the_Chance_to_State_the_Goal_and_Structure_of_Sustainability_Markets_in_His_Time_If_Yes_Which_Could_Be_Some_of_the_Possible_Reasons_Behind_That

b) About correcting the traditional market of Adam Smith;

There are two ways of dealing with the environmental crisis: i) a scientific way, green markets, green economy, green growth all based on perfect green market thinking and free markets: it requires environmental cost internalization in the price mechanism so that the market send the right green signals: ii) a non-scientific way, non green markets or dwarf markets, dwarf green growth, and dwarf green economies, all based on non-perfect market thinking and non-free markets: it requires to continue treating environmental costs as externalities...it can not sent green signals, but dwarf green signals....

The mainstream thinkers/economist clearly have shown a non-science based economic approach to an environmental crisis they apparently first were thinking to deal with free green market theory and practice...

Have a nice day Luis

Article What If Markets Have Always Been Distorted? Would It Then Be...

Article Complex and Man-made Markets: Are We Currently Approaching S...

Data Did Adam Smith Miss the Chance to State the Goal and Structu...

Sorry Luis, this paragraph should have said:

"The mainstream thinkers/economist clearly have chosen a non-science based economic approach to an environmental crisis they apparently first were thinking to deal with free green market theory and practice..."

Have a nice day!

Dear friends, sharing here this paper unpublished as food for thoughts: this has implications for both red socialist thinking and traditional market thinking,,,,

Beyond Both Red Socialism Thinking and Traditional Market Thinking: What is the Structure of the Perfect Red Market?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308886046_Beyond_Both_Red_Socialism_Thinking_and_Traditional_Market_Thinking_What_is_the_Structure_of_the_Perfect_Red_Market

Have a nice day

Article Beyond Both Red Socialism Thinking and Traditional Market Th...

 Good day everyone

I am sharing here this article unpublished and you can use it as food for thoughts:

Is Environmental Externality Management a Correction of Adam Smith’s Model to Make It Environmentally Friendly and Shift it Towards Green Markets or Is It a Distortion on Top of Another Distortion?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309463581_Is_Environmental_Externality_Management_a_Correction_of_Adam_Smith%27s_Model_to_Make_It_Environmentally_Friendly_and_Shift_it_Towards_Green_Markets_or_Is_It_a_Distortion_on_Top_of_Another_Distortion

Have a nice day

Article Is Environmental Externality Management a Correction of Adam...

Dear friends, here sharing my most recent article which I trust you may find interesting in terms of food for thoughts:

If Going From Free Markets to Non-Free Markets is the Way to Go: Does This Means the End of Rational Decision Making Thinking or Is This Just a Temporary Block of a Perfect Paradigm Shift to Green Markets?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312092336_If_Going_From_Free_Markets_to_Non-Free_Markets_is_the_Way_to_Go_Does_This_Means_the_End_of_Rational_Decision_Making_Thinking_or_Is_This_Just_a_Temporary_Block_of_a_Perfect_Paradigm_Shift_to_Green_Mark

Article If Going From Free Markets to Non-Free Markets is the Way to...

Those interested in green market thinking may find the following article full of food for thoughts

From Traditional Markets to Green Markets: A Look at Markets Under Perfect Green Market Competition

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330617155_From_Traditional_Markets_to_Green_Markets_A_Look_at_Markets_Under_Perfect_Green_Market_Competition

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330701187_From_Traditional_Markets_to_Green_Markets_A_Look_at_Markets_Under_Perfect_Green_Market_Competition

Sharing article

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

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334535200_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