It is certainly true that serious action against climate change will require giving decarbonization needs the highest priority. In that sense, economic growth as an objective will have to recede. This doesn’t mean growth is “bad” in any general sense, just that it now needs to rank lower among the many things we want for ourselves. Given any level of decarbonization (and setting aside all the other competing needs, of which there are many), if we can achieve this with more growth, or less degrowth, so much the better. The one point of agreement I have with the degrowth view is that the argument sometimes put forward that we can’t afford to take stringent measures against carbon because it will derail economic growth has to be rejected.
Dear Olatunji A Shobande,
You are taking a very important topic for discussion so I will be happy to discuss sustainable sustainable slower development.
Best wishes
Dear Olatunji A Shobande,
Thank you very much for making very important inquiries on the Research Gate portal and inspiring important discussions on particularly important issues.
The issue of sustainable pro-ecological development, climate change, climate warming, rising average temperature on the Earth, the progressing greenhouse effect of the Earth and the associated new climate disasters is probably the most important topic for discussion, research and for human activity in the 21st century.
The topics related to the greenhouse effect on Earth, which are the subject of discussion, are particularly important and scientifically important and in the context of human life.
I wish you all good and best regards
The above question inspired me to the following considerations:
The concept of zero growth, green economy, "the post-growth economy", sustainable proecological economic development as an antidote to the future global climate disaster of the end of the 21st century?
Because the issues of "the post-growth economy" and related issues such as the concept of zero growth, green economy, sustainable environmentally friendly economic development combine to form a very complex and multifaceted research area, so I will discuss this issue in the following topics.
The concept of zero growth for the domestic, or rather for, the global economy was based on theoretical considerations aimed at formulating the answer to the question: What would the economy look like in a fully sustainable, pro-annual development based on the assumptions of the green economy?
Development of ecological innovations, implementation on an industrial scale of new technological solutions for renewable energy sources, development of electromobility in the automotive industry, increasing the efficiency and automation of waste segregation and recycling, afforestation of degraded areas of civilization, reclamation of degraded natural environment, etc. in the long-term can not be implemented in In the form of large investment projects financed mainly from public funds, because it would generate a high public debt and the investment projects themselves would be growth-friendly, they would be a denial of "the post-growth economy".
The development of green economics and the long-term pursuit of the global economy for sustainable pro-ecological development must take place through the implementation of economically profitable business projects. How would the whole global economy change so that theoretical considerations could become a fact in the future? There are many answers to this question, and more specifically, recommendations for the necessary changes that must be implemented so that humanity can avoid a global climate disaster at the end of the 21st century.
These recommendations appear, for example, at UN symposia, conferences and summits, during which what should be done to slow down the global warming of the planet Earth is discussed. Some results of research on greenhouse gas emissions and projections of the continuation of the global warming process suggest that only a decade of time has already been left for the implementation and dissemination of these necessary changes, including: developing eco-innovations, implementing new technological solutions on an industrial scale. concerning renewable energy sources, development of electromobility in the automotive industry, increasing the efficiency and automation of waste segregation and recycling, afforestation of degraded areas, civilization, reclamation of degraded natural environment, etc.
Otherwise, the global warming process will accelerate and by the end of the 21st century, the average temperature at the Earth's surface can increase by as much as 4 degrees C, which will mean the melting of all glaciers, sea and ocean surface rise by 20 meters, widespread drought, steppes and desertification many current green areas, significant reduction in arable land area of agricultural production, reduction of areas suitable for human existence, numerous fires, increase of volcanic activity, more frequent climatic disasters such as tornadoes and downpours, release of methane from the arid soils of eternal desiccation of arctic regions and further acceleration of the greenhouse gas emission process and the inability of human to reverse this process.
So now there is time pressure to make the necessary changes for the implementation of the new global economy. We know what to do. We do not know how to do it to make this process based on profitable investment projects and not only on publicly financed investments, which are not always profitable and are financially limited.
Perhaps the solution is the synergy of all these pro-ecological undertakings. The synergy of simultaneous launch of various pro-ecological undertakings will generate an additional added value that will enable the improvement of these activities, including pro-ecological investment projects planned and implemented with the assumptions of the new green economy concept. Only when most of these ventures reach profitability, then only then will the globally functioning green economy based on sustainable pro-ecological economic development become real.
This development would not have to be characterized by high profitability. In the long-term, this profitability would globally approach the zero level in line with the concept of macroeconomic zero growth. Then economics could dominate globally, a global economy based on the concept of "the post-growth economy" would emerge.
If the whole process could be completed in the shortest possible time in the next dozen or so years, humanity could avoid a global climatic catastrophe which, according to the predictions of climatologists investigating the process of global warming, will most likely appear at the end of the 21st century if mankind fails to apply the necessary pro-ecological reforms.
In view of the above, the current question is: The concept of zero growth, green economy, "the post-growth economy", sustainable proecological economic development as an antidote to the future global climate disaster of the end of the 21st century?
I invite you to the discussion.
In addition, I note the interesting discussion inspired me to the following considerations:
Why is there still traditional energy based on burning minerals in some countries?
The problem is when the economically weak, small domestic economy has only traditional energy minerals, such as hard coal or lignite, and there are no developed different forms of renewable energy sources. In such a situation, there is a lack of financial resources for switching energy to renewable energy sources so as to move towards sustainable development according to the philosophy of the new, green economy, in order to limit the emission of greenhouse gases. The warming of the Earth's climate is already a fact and is a serious growing problem. Therefore, renewable energy sources should be developed. Rich countries should support countries characterized by weaker economy, lower incomes and based on traditional energy technologies. It is therefore necessary to strengthen international cooperation in the area of promotion, support and financing of investment projects, thanks to which it will be possible to develop renewable energy sources in the future and aim at sustainable pro-ecological development.
In view of the above, I would like to ask you: Why is there still traditional energy based on burning minerals in some countries?
I invite you to the discussion
Therefore, in the context of the above considerations, the following important question appears:
Will it be possible in the future to fully sustain economic development in harmony with ecology?
Sustainable development is very important in the context of the increasing use of resources and environmental pollution.
The basic issue that must be achieved within the framework of full sustainable development is the renewal of resources, reduction of economic growth to the optimal level ensuring renewable resources, reduction of environmental pollution, creation of biodegradable substitutes for fossil fuels, replacement of traditional energy based on mineral combustion for technological innovations in in the field of energy, including the development of energy based on renewable energy sources of renewable energy, etc. To this should be added a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to slow down the negative aspects of the oceogenic climate of the Earth. There is so much to do in these themes and, above all, a great deal to do in the 21st century so that it would not be too late.
To effectively carry out this process, it is necessary to develop universal, precise measures of sustainable development that will be used globally and will be recognized as the standards for assessing the process of achieving and achieving sustainable economic development in harmony with ecology.
But it is very difficult to establish precise measures for the sustainable development process. Sustainable economic development in correlation with ecology should be measured to determine if it is being implemented. It is necessary to define precise determinants that on one hand will determine the pace of economic development and on the other hand will take into account specific issues of ecology. It should be a set of quantified indicators based on selected measurable and quantitative data, so that the whole analytical process can be considered as a research objective method. The best solution will therefore be to develop an analytical scoring method, for which the basic components of this method will be defined economic and ecological quantitative indicators.
In the light of the above, the question arises: Is sustainable development possible taking into account the full harmony of economic development with ecology?
Even if it is unrealistic, what are the reasons for building a theoretical model that would present such a fully balanced development?
I invite you to the discussion
Disclaimer: I have strictly no skill in the science of ecology or in climatology, but I feel it should not be an obstacle to provide my opinion on this topic, as it is the case of 99% of the people who declare their views in the media and social networks. Me too, I want to talk :-) !
I was actually interested in the first sentence of the post: "It is certainly true that serious action against climate change will require giving decarbonization needs the highest priority. In that sense, economic growth as an objective will have to recede."
There are many definitions of decarbonization. If it is taken in its negative sense (stop using technologies with high carbon emission over their entire life cycle), recession is probably the only outcome because even electric mobility --often presented as the solution-- does not pass this test and may even have nastier impacts on environment due to the increase in mining activities required to produce the rare metals needed by the new technologies.
If decarbonization is seen as developing active technologies that capture CO2 and other greenhouse gas emission at the source, and reduce the excess content of these gas in the atmosphere, it is at the contrary a pro-growth solution: it entails new investments and new jobs without destroying existing activities.
Considering that the World population is still growing at a sustained rhythm, there is little option in my (uninformed, see my disclaimer) opinion: Even if post-industrial economies are reducing their greenhouse gas emission by unit of GDP, the World economy is expected to grow mainly in lesser developed economies that still rely on manufacture, rather than services, for their development. Therefore, the global warming process will accelerate and the first definition of decarbonization with degrowth is definitely not an option.
My two cents,
H
@ Escaith, thank your for contributions. Its highly appreciated but the game and gambling of environmental issues with respect to climate change is beyong theoretical explanations at this stage. We are able to have diseases accompanied by climate change without medicine to cure it. Its really an heavy tragedy that still remains a puzzle.
Olatunji Shobande : Perhaps you are right. Perhaps the 19th and 20th century were only an exception in a long history of humankind governed by the Malthus' Law: A long sequence of economic and population growth cycle followed by a collapse of the population, required to equalise resources with demand and start a new cycle. This is what ecology (the science, not the politics) tells us, by the way.
Perhaps this is the true fate of the humankind, and it will not differ from all other living animals or plants on Earth, which population depends on the dynamic equilibrium between what they require and what their environment can provide.
For purely subjective reasons (again, I am not an expert), I tend to prefer the optimistic alternative that humankind will be able to research and develop new technologies that will make the economy environmentally sustainable. If only because I really don't like the alternative.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Science
- Media
- Journalism