Dear Richard, the Bruntland commission asked for internalizing environmental and social externalities through sustainable development means to correct for Adam Smith's social and environmental externality assumptions...and make markets socially and environmentally inclusive once and for all and as they should have been in the first place had Adam Smith stated sustainability markets instead of the traditional market in his time....

Instead of doing what we needed to do in 1987, correct the traditional market model to account for social and environmental externalities right then the mainstreamed moved to embrace a concept that means many things, perhaps done to accommodate all the views of that time and avoid academic discourse....creating so many and so different "sustainable development schools', with the eco-economy school wining at the end....in 2012 RIO +20 (UNCSD) green growth/green markets was launched as the formal substitute of the perfect market....

Insterestingly, today sustainable delopment should mean green markets or green growth as this is the dominant partnership model now, yet even in the paris agreement they mean different things to sustainable development thinkers...

Richard you may find my article below interesting and with some food for thoughts:

Understanding the Death and Paradigm Shift of Adam Smith’s model: Was Going Green the Only Option? If not, Is This Option the Most Sustainable One?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299882613_Understanding_the_Death_and_Paradigm_Shift_of_Adam_Smith%27s_model_Was_Going_Green_the_Only_Option_If_not_Is_This_Option_the_Most_Sustainable_One

Article Understanding the Death and Paradigm Shift of Adam Smith’s m...

Dear Richard,

from my point of view the academics have not been generally wrong, but their considerations have been incomplete in terms of the monetarisation of the environmental benefits.This results in the fact that the sustainability triangle is still imbalanced in favor of the economical part.

Usually in the practise in terms of the economic evaluation are considered in the cost-benefit-analysis the tangible costs and benefits but not the intangible cost and benefits, as usually these type of cost can not be quantified. When are designed certain projects or products with consideration of the intangible cost some projects or products would not exist because they would be economically inefficient (in the sense of not sustainable), or other products would exist because they have a much better cost-benefit ratio in case the intangible natural benefits would be considered in a monetary way. In such a case the intangible natural cost concern especially the benefit from ecosystem services (and probably also intangible social services).

Coming back to your question: I suppose that the concept of sustainable development must consider much better the environmental and social benefits, and this is only possible in a quantifiable way to arrive to the required balance of the sustainability triangle. The summary of what I wish to express is: our sustainability triangle is still not equal-sided, but the general way is correct.

And, by the way: the "inventor" of the sustainability term, Carl von Carlowitz, already  struggled with the same problems nearly exactly 300 years ago. His book Sylvicultura Oeconomica, where he fristly mentioned the term "sustainability" had a remarkably deep impact in his time (the first edition was in 1713), but seems that we as mankind learn very very slowly.

Best regards

Petra

Best regards,

Petra

Dear Lucio, Tomas and Petra,

Thanks so much for your illuminating elaboration of the complex problem of assessing the relationship between economic growth and environmental sustainability. You have very clearly laid out the technical issues involved. However, there is also the political dimension that perhaps we should address. The concept of sustainable development has given political cover to those who, with a sigh of relief, contend they can reconcile  business-as-usual with environmental rectitude, provided companies try a little harder to be 'green'. Do you see that as a problem?

Cordially,

Richard

Dear all,

thank you for the interesting and fruitful discussion. I wish to add some comments.

I agree with Richard that the problem has a strong political dimension. And I agree with Tomas that matters are more complicated. And I still maintain my opinion that the existing approach to solve the problem is incomplete.

I see the problem from a practical point of view (as I am a practitioner): as long as we have environmental damage from the use of resources we have not reached the scope of an equal-sided sustainability triangle, regardless of the reasons, means this is a diagnosis. As I understand this state determination, our tools for the prognosis are still poor (and that causes also poor mitigation results), and has several reasons: a) the problem is too complex and we still can not catch it completely, b) the political willingness has not the necessary extent for a real solution to solve the problem (and this is because most of the politicians look for the "economical growth" to keep the current state), and c) denial of reality. Speaking pragmatically: already now we can not establish the balance which is necessary for reaching sustainability, how will we manage the dimension of the problem in the future when much more people require resources ? Means: we deal with the symptoms, but do not want to solve the cause of the problem.

Taking the example of environmental tax for GHG emissions, I agree that they are a tool for the monetization of the environmental damage, but also this instrument is incomplete, from my point of view. It considers the environmental damage caused by the use of fossil fuel, and it allows for the quantification of the climate services. But it doesn't consider the secondary environmental and social damage as there are for instance the death of the coral reefs or migration due to water scarcity. It doesn't consider the environmental benefit from not-using the resource. May be the conclusion that the tax is not high enough ? Further we see the reality when we take the example of the carbon tax rate that is rising over time and might induce fossil fuel resource owners to accelerate resource extraction. I am not really convinced about that assumption due to the fact that in the end of the day, when fossil fuel is cheap, it will be consumed, regardless the taxes. This means the effectiveness of the tax instrument depends from the global political situation and the market development.

The same regarding the substitutability: this point needs to receive a special attention, from my point of view, because also this means dealing with the symptoms, but not with strategies to solve the problem (sorry to express this so strong). Of course we can discuss about substitutability, but does this bring us forward to solve the problem ? From my point of view limited substitutability also misses partially the point: that a lot of products are not necessary - those which have a poor eco-efficiency and those which are simply unnecessary (especially luxury products). They do not need substitution, they need to be discontinued (and automatically there is not environmental and social impact anymore).

Coming back to above mentioned point c) denial of reality: we have the diagnosis (already too late, problem will become worse soon), we have the general strategy to solve the problem (sustainability expressed through equilibrium between economy, ecology and social requirements), we have strategies to mitigate parts of the problem that we caused (green technology), but we do not have willingness to implement the strategy and the technology. One question may be allowed: why do we not have that willingness ? And even in case we really do not have that willingness or maybe the awareness, why the political leaders do not force to have the willingness and awareness ? In that regard I agree with Richard that the political dimension must be addressed, and it seems that the political class - this is the  obvious conclusion - is part of the problem.

Referring to Richards original question, if economic growth and environmental sustainability could be mutually reinforcing under the roof of the sustainable development strategy, my point of view is the following: yes, it would do that - but only after we do not deny the reality anymore and start to tackle the causes of the problem to finally really solve it. Of course this will be a unpleasant task with stormy headwind, the end of the general comfort, but it is the only way. Moreover: the longer we wait, the smaller the margin of maneuver that we have - the necessity to act which was also expressed by Lucio.

Best regards,

Petra

Richard, the concept provided political cover, all has gone wrong, se shifted paradigm and not one is to take responsibility,

a) It took until 1987/Bruntland Commission Report for mainstream economists to accept that endorsing Adam Smith traditional market model since the industrial revolution assuming social and environmental externalities without questioning it was wrong as indicated by levels of poverty and environmental pollution the commission documented then; No trickledown effect ever took place.

b) it took from 1987 to 2012/RIO +20(UNCSD) for mainstream economists to accept that all sustainable development approaches used until then had failed and that it was time to finally correct Adam smith model by internalizing environmental externalities and so the world of green markets driven by green growth became the official policy of all developing countries in 2012, a policy endorsed in the 2015 Paris agreement and which is about to be ratified….A WORLD OF GREEN MARKETS….

c) From 2012 to 2016 all developed countries and all global institutions like the world bank, FAO, IMF…are in this “low carbon development idea” to be implemented through THE GREEN MARKETS they not yet have and under this green market knowledge gap as they are trying to used the economic thought that used to work for traditional markets, but no longer works under green markets violating the theory-practice consistency principle.

d) I will be a spectator here from now and on, but I will continue to write so one day when the low carbon approach without green markets fails then they can read in my publications what went wrong this time.  I think that even at minimum pollution environmental unsustainability and social unsustainability will bring the low carbon program to a halt very soon making sustainability conditions even worse, but sometimes you need the creation of very bad conditions for real change to come.

Thomas, Petra and Richard, good day. a few comments here as food for thoughts:

a)  have you ever thought about the possibility Adam Smith got it wrong, instead of the traditional market theory he could have given us the sustainability market theory

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/286625136_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

Adam Smith and Karl Marx Under the Sustainability Eye: Pointing Out and Comparing the Sustainability Gaps Behind these Two Great Simplification Failures

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299885202_Adam_Smith_and_Karl_Marx_Under_the_Sustainability_Eye_Pointing_Out_and_Comparing_the_Sustainability_Gaps_Behind_these_Two_Great_Simplification_Failures

b) By stating the traditional market theory he sent us towards sustainability backwards in terms of economic thinking

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

c) And that his assumption of social and environmentally neutral economic development we have been living in distorted markets all the time;

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

d) the recent shift from the traditional market to the green market in 2012 is a direct action to partially implement the internailization requested in 1987 by the bruntland commission;

Understanding the Death and Paradigm Shift of Adam Smith’s model: Was Going Green the Only Option? If not, Is This Option the Most Sustainable One?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299882613_Understanding_the_Death_and_Paradigm_Shift_of_Adam_Smith%27s_model_Was_Going_Green_the_Only_Option_If_not_Is_This_Option_the_Most_Sustainable_One

e) That this shift from the traditional market to the green market or eco-economy has created the green market knowledge gap

The Unintended Consequences of Paradigm Death and Shift: Was the Arrow Impossibility Theorem Left Behind?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299879934_The_Unintended_Consequences_of_Paradigm_Death_and_Shift_Was_the_Arrow_Impossibility_Theorem_Left_Behind

f) And we need to come up with ideas of how best to internalize environmental externalies in our economic thought

The Past Versus the Present in Development Thinking: Pointing Out the Structure of the Old Agricultural Development Model After Internalizing Environmental Externalities.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281244857_The_Past_Versus_the_Present_in_Development_Thinking_Pointing_Out_the_Structure_of_the_Old_Agricultural_Development_Model_After_Internalizing_Environmental_Externalities

The Present Versus the Future in Development Thinking: Towards Agricultural Sustainability

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281244871_The_Present_Versus_the_Future_in_Development_Thinking_Towards_Agricultural_Sustainability

g) and avoid creating green sweatshops

From Traditional Sweatshops to Green Sweatshops: Is This a More Socially Friendly Strategy?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281277722_From_Traditional_Sweatshops_to_Green_Sweatshops_Is_This_a_More_Socially_Friendly_Strategy

h) and therefore, green markets or eco-economic development requires a different way of thinking

An overview of some of the policy implications of the eco-economic development market

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235291216_An_overview_of_some_of_the_policy_implications_of_the_eco-economic_development_market

Sharing this with all my respect

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

Article Adam Smith and Karl Marx Under the Sustainability Eye: Point...

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

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

Article Understanding the Death and Paradigm Shift of Adam Smith’s m...

Article The Unintended Consequences of Paradigm Death and Shift: Was...

Article The Past Versus the Present in Development Thinking: Pointin...

Article The Present Versus the Future in Development Thinking: Towar...

Article From Traditional Sweatshops to Green Sweatshops: Is This a M...

Article An overview of some of the policy implications of the eco-ec...

Meadows (Club of Rome) thinks the term is now a misnomer, and the time when we could possibly have sustainable development has passed.

Jon

Thanks to Petra for his final comment on the politics of sustainability and to Lucio for the very informative list of readings to follow up. Jon's observation that the time when sustainable development was a possibility has passed is highly pertinent. That is also my position.

How is it really possible to internalize environmental externalities? In the first place, it is very difficult to assign a monetary value to certain externalities. What is the value of a good view destroyed or a little known species driven into extinction? In the second place, to include all the externalities in the price, for example by assigning taxes to producers depending on the environmental damage of their processes and products, would drive many firms into bankruptcy. Imagine what the real cost of a barrel of oil from Canada's oil sands would be. The price would need to include not only the cost of all the GHG emissions resulting from extracting and processing the bitumen, but also of the vast quantities of fresh water that is polluted in the process, the enormous quantities of natural gas consumed, the reclamation of the barren landscape resulting from he extractive process, and of the externalities of building and operating pipelines to the area. The companies could not pay, and the federal and provincial governments would be unwilling to subsidize the industry through taxation. Consequently, the oil sands production would collapse - which, admittedly, would be a good thing. But such a collapse is politically unacceptable in Alberta and Canada.

In the end, it makes more sense to accept that economic growth and environmental sustainability are incompatible, in light of the need to reduce carbon emissions by 10% a year in order to hold the average rise in global temperatures to 2 degrees Celsius in this century.

K W Kapp called them social costs instead of externalities, a much better formulation. A good way of proceeding is to suggest development has a qualitative as well as a quantitative aspect. We should ask "growth of what?" and "growth for what?

HTH

Jon

Dear Jon, and friends in 1987 when I read "our common future" I thought finally they got it right as internalizing social and environmental issues to stop business as usual and make it inclusive....I thought the world of sustainability markets was at hands.  No serious effort was made in my view to  solving the issues through sustainability as there was a theory of sustainable development and concept, but not a theory of sustainability.  Taking advantage of it, researchers felt free to use the concepts as if the were the same, something that sometimes still happens today...

Therefore, the concept sustainable development was technically hackjacked by different groups to fit their different worlds and the period 1987 to 2012 started.  Then 2012 the eco-economy/green market/green growth was chose by RIO + 20 as " the future we want", and form 2012 to 2016 the search of how best to implement this eco-economic/green market/green growth world started ending in today's push called "low carbon development" as promoted now by the World Bank, FAO, OECD countries and to be ratify by all  member of the paris agreement soon and make official.

Had the mainstream thinkers specially at the UN based ones taken the bruntland request for fixing Adam Smith model seriously and would had decided right away to follow the green market route from 1987 and on...., then we could have used the time 1987-2012 to develop the theory of the perfect green markets, green microeconomics, and green macroeconomics; and then we would have the proper tools today to support low carbon development a la green markets...We shifted in 2012 to green markets without having the proper tools/knowledge to support it....No wonder governments everywhere, including Canada, are finding it difficult to set up green markets to support a green economy...I hope efforts are focused now on closing the current green market knowledge gap....

Greetings to dall

Dear friends, there is need of finding ways of moving forward for the sake of humanity, and sometimes we may need to go around to move forward and leave the dilemmas created by Adam Smith's assumptions behind....

Why not all of you take the time to read my two papers, the past vrs the present and the present vrs the future in development thinking to see one possible way around this....And then we go from there.....They are in the list of documents I shared....

Wish you all a good night;

Respectfully yours;

Lucio

The basic concept of Sustainable Development is not flawed.  The applications of the concept have been, for a variety of reasons.

I would argue that there is a subset of all forms of Development that could be considered 'Sustainable', but what that subset is is wholly dependant on the type of development.  If we take the definition of development as 'An improvement in Quality of Life between two points of time', then it becomes 'Quality of Life' that is the potentially flawed concept.

Human Development is the process of increasing people's freedoms, choices, and capabilities, and is outside of my expertise.  Through these changes, people are able to meet their needs more effectively.  Some people argue that all forms of Human Development are Sustainable - that may be true.

Technological Development is the process of investing time and resources with an expectation of a return on that investment in the form of time and/or resources.  Sustainable Technological Development would be T.D., but that return is only considering the resources available to the community in perpetuity, and the time required to meet needs.  It is easy to show in a technologically rich society that there is little benefit gained through further technological investment.

Technological development would provide the most meaningful improvements to Quality of Life while consumption (measured as Ecological Footprint) is significantly less than the Biocapacity for the community, and human development would provide the most meaningful improvements to Quality of Life once consumption exceeds Biocapacity. 

This suggests that there would not be a concept of 'Sustainable Economic Development', but rather 'Economic Sustainable Development', and what was the most economic form of S.D. would change over time.

To make the math simpler, I 'unscramble the egg' by making the distinction between the Potential Quality of Life (the time available after needs are met), and the Actualized Quality of Life (the time available after needs are met, as if all needs are met).  S.T.D addresses the PQoL only, and while that will influence AQoL, only HD can consistently increase AQoL. post capacity.

The political challenge comes from the limitation of governments.  All governments, regardless of scale and nature, do two tasks - they act as a steward of the commons, and maintain the status quo.  Prior to capacity, a community can have a status quo of 'growth' and be sure that all of it's residents have hope for a higher PQoL. Post capacity, these two tasks are in conflict.  Increasing economic activity will have no positive effect post capacity on the Actualized Quality of Life, and is unlikely to have a meaningful positive effect on the Potential Quality of Life.  In a democracy, governments must be seen to respond to the concerns of the people, and these concerns will invariably be identified through the observations of symptoms of problems, rather than through the underlying problems (see that Climate Change initiatives are intended to slow the rate of GHG emissions, not reduce concentrations in the atmosphere).  So democratic governments will, de facto, fiddle while Rome burns.  Unless they add a third task - ensure that AQoL is not diminished by any set of choices. 

Dear Douglas, I assumed you are trying to answer Richard question, did we get it right or wrong?...You seem to be saying we got it right, but we implemented it wrong.... 

Are you saying that the paradigm shift to green markets took place in 2012, not because there was nothing wrong with Adam Smith model and the environmental externality neutrality assumption it is based on, but because of people applied it wrongly, that means all the programs locally and globally from 1987/Bruntland commission request for change and 2016?..... 

Is that what you think?   In your model, are environmental issues now endogenous issues or still externality issues, yes or no, and why?.

Have a nice day?

Lucio - yes, I'm answering Richard's question.

I'm not saying anything about a paradigm shift.  I would not argue there has been one or not.  I'm happy to discuss upcoming transitions, triggered by Peak Conventional Oil, Peak Oceanic Fishery, Peak Conventional Agriculture, Peak Gas, and Peak Ecological Footprint, Peak Fossil Carbon, Peak Coal, and Peak Usable Fossil Energy.  These transitions will likely force a paradigm shift (or even several over the 50 years), even if one hasn't occurred yet.

In my theory, environmental issues are either related to supporting the ecological services that we rely on directly to provide the resources and assimilative capacity we use to support our Ecological Footprint, or they are related to how effectively we are able to meet our needs (think nature deficit disorder).  There may also be an argument for intrinsic values of ecological functions that are unrelated to human activities (like protecting the endangered whosi-whatzit for no purpose other than it exists today).

Dear all,

I agree with Lucio that there is need of finding ways of moving forward for the sake of humanity, but considering the behavior of people we can be sure that this will not be reached by building public awareness or trying to convince people. In the end of the day humans are egoistic, in fact I believe it will only happen when the pressure will be (too) big.

In parallel I agree with Douglas' opinion that we will have to pass the next transitions caused by resource shortage quite soon, and what will foster that development - from my point of view - will be the water shortage. In the end of the day we could survive without fossil energy, oil, gas ... or even fish but not without water. And what we will see quite soon, will be serious implications - like as much more migrants - due to water/food scarcity - in a lot of regions in the world. I am personally convinced that especially this will force the necessary paradigm shift, because we talk about a huge number of people, even whole countries. I assume that the pressure on the political establishment will increase in an unprecedented extent and could finally allow for the necessary fundamental changes, which should have been already started at least in 1987. I believe that those transitions will have unprecedented large social impacts, and this would be the moment when all of us will have to pay the price for the incomplete and insufficient consideration of the ecosystems services value in all economic models and activities.

And I agree with Tomas that in that moment will be drastic actions, whether we like it or not. Probably by then the needed modifications in the conventional economic models and environmental economics will be done, as the next transitions will provide the validation data for the model modifications in real time. (By the way I am not a pessimistic person predicting the end of the world, i am just illustrating the reality).

Best regards,

Petra

Douglas, just one question, are environemtnal issues endogenous issues or externalities in your model, which you say is an econmic sustainable development model?. 

Have a nice day

Petra, thank you for your comments.  I will leave there then.  

I will just share these two articles with you and move on:

1) One clarifing the issues around self-interest and markets

a) Full selfishness/fully irresponsible behaviour takes place only on the traditional market because it is based on independent rational decision making towards maximization.  There is full externality neutrality assumption here as both the environment and society are exogenous factors.

b) Partial selfishness/partially responsible behaviour takes place in partially codependent markets like green markes where you have an economy-environment partnership forcing partial optimization or partial maximization as you must ensure win-win situations.  There is partial neutrality assumption here as only society is an exogenous factor.

c) full unselfishness/fully responsible behaviour takes place in fully codependent markets like sustainability markets you have a full partnerhsip model based on optimization.  There is here full inclusion as there is no component neutrality assumption.

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

 2) The need one day from dirty markets to green markets:

a) The main issue here is the steep current renewable energy technology gap, which is we were to transition today would lead to local and global economic blackouts.  And which if we transition tomorrow and this gap is still there, there will be economic black outs.

Understanding the Road Towards the Current Dominant Non-Renewable Energy Use Based Economy: Using An Inversegram to Point Out a Step by Step Strategy Towards an Efficient Dominant Renewable Energy Use Based Economy

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281230333_Understanding_the_Road_Towards_the_Current_Dominant_Non-Renewable_Energy_Use_Based_Economy_Using_An_Inversegram_to_Point_Out_a_Step_by_Step_Strategy_Towards_an_Efficient_Dominant_Renewable_Energy_Use_

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

Article Understanding the Road Towards the Current Dominant Non-Rene...

My apologies Petra, these are the heading of the two sections I wrote one for each paper shared

1) One clarifing the issues around self-interest and markets

2) The other about need one day transition from  dirty markets to clean markets:

Sorry, Lucio, I thought I was clear.

Environmental issues are not externalities in my model - to be sustainable, a community must manage in perpetuity the land and water that produces the resources and assimilates their wastes.  The efficiency of a community in using time to convert resources into the means to meet their wants and needs is dependant on (among other things) the robustness of the natural services available to the community.  In addition, there will be needs that are most effectively met by having access to natural environments.

Likewise, there may be examples when they could be considered external, when dealing with ecosystem services that have no obvious benefit for people, either in addressing efficiency or effectiveness.  But while I think there is room for such I position, I am not able to argue for (or against) it.  Is there value to 'Wilderness'?  Or Whooping Cranes?  Or...  I can't answer that. But that doesn't mean that if such a value can be identified, that it can't be represented by either a land mass, or a time use, and introduced into the math.

I'm not sure I am using the concept of 'endogenous' the same way you mean it, but if you mean 'cause' vs 'effect', then the environment is, and must be, an independent variable that 'causes' our economic system, in any concept of Sustainability. Any other way of looking at it is completely disingenuous.  To prove that, consider a colony on the moon - what would it take to make a robust economy?  A robust ecology.  It would have to feed itself, assimilate all its wastes, generate all its energy, and maintain a balance in all of the nutrient cycles, or it would be dependant on the labour and resources of Earth, and therefore not be Sustainable.

I'm not sure I would characterize my model as an 'economic sustainable development' model.  It is implicitly a model for Sustainable Technological Development, with an understanding that it has not much value without Human Development to Actualize the Potential that S.T.D. can produce.  When I mentioned the idea of 'economic sustainable development' (something which I believe to have no fixed definition in time or place), I was contrasting to 'sustainable economic development' (something which I believe to be impossible).

Dear Douglas, I do appreciate that you as me are doing what we can for a better world, but you need to read a little bit more about basic concepts to make the idea you want to convey clear and defensible at anytime....

You need to sort out at least the following Douglas: a)  what type sustainable development your idea falls in?: b) this will give you an idea of what is endogenous and what is exogenous in your model;: and c) and this can give you an idea of the price structure your idea may fall in unless you are thinking about inplementing that idea using non-market means.

Sorry Douglas, I will leave it here.

Respectfully yours;

Lucio

Dear Richard, judging from what has transpired from 1980 till now, I don't think embracing the concept of sustainable development has been wrong. Never.

Dear Desmond, why do you think this shift to the green markets took place and the new focused on low carbon development?...if it was left behind it can not be because it was working well, do not you think so?

Have a nice day Desmond!

Dear Richard, good day.  Sharing here a paper I think will provide some food for thoughts with respect to the structure of green markets,  it will be out by the end of the year:

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

Respectfully yous;

Lucio

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

Thanks, Lucio, I look forward to reading it.

Richard and friends

Here sharing two articles as foof for thoughts, one published and on unpublished.

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

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

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...