*Institutions talking about green economies without the existence of green markets;
*Researchers working or writing on green growth without out the existence of green market data because there are no green markets;
*Academics using environmentally patched traditional economic thinking to support the implementation of dwarf green markets instead of using perfect green market thinking/true green economics to addressing the environmental issue properly;
*International organizations defining sustainability as sustainable development despite work out there indicating that to do that you need alternative academic facts or you need to ignored the science based facts;
*Researchers presenting sustainable development ideas through using sustainability thinking and diagrams, perhaps without realizing or ignoring the fact that sustainability thinking is inconsistent with sustainable development thinking.
It seem that since 2012 any approach to deal with the environmental pollution problem/ environmental issue is fair other than the shift to green markets as the goal seem to be, not to ever go to clean markets, but to keep environmental pollution production markets going if the environment permits for ever, which raises the question: Has the 2012 Rio +20 decision to move towards dwarf green markets instead of green markets, green economies and green growth led to academic tunneling?
What do you think?
+Tunneling: The tendency to ignore...
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Bioecology
- Systems Ecology
- Landscape Ecology
- Connectivity