GE is NOT rooted in EE but rather in environmental economics -- the philosophical and epistemological differences are immense... I suggest using the recent reader  of J Martinez Alier, et al Ecological Economics from the Ground Up.  He also has early texts from the 90s. Another text is: The Environmentalism of the Poor: A study of ecological conflicts and valuation  My own article : Community Forest Management: Can the green economy contribute to environmental justice?”, Natural Resources Forum, Vol. 37(3):200-210, 2013, (with Mario Fuente). (ISSN: 1477-8947). DOI: 10.1111/1477-8947.12010 (available on ResearchGate) is also useful

Of course -- I  am surprised that you formulate the question; green economy is the neoclassical economics version for people participating in the area of ecological economics (EE) --  it accepts most of the underlying precepts of standard economics and implicitly rejects most of the innovative contributions of EE, most notably Georgescu Roegen, but also more recent contribiutions.

Hello, could you develop little more about the fundamental conceptual demarcation lines between EE and the "green economy" as far as development practice is concerned. Thanks !

Responding to Jean Claude:  The "GE" is fundamentally anchored in the market and accepts the power relationships embedded in the international market.  It accepts a very important notion of neoclassical economics:  it is based on 'weak sustainability' (humans being able to compensate for the destruction of natural resources by means of produced forms of capital)... Th

@ David Barkin: Thank you so very much Sir for the answers. I am just a novice in this field and got my self confused after finding that both of these two streams emerged at the same time, during 1980-1990. I even got more confused when I found that David Pearce was working with Costanza on the issues of EE but wrote his fist book on GE. That is why I assumed that GE must had emerged from EE but I hardly have found any support from the literature that directly claims it, besides a clarification on this blind guess was required from some Scholars. After reading your reply, I am much confident to say that GE is rooted in EE but still falling short with out having any support literature. If you could suggest me some direct sources from where I can cite it, then that would be an invaluable help indeed.

GE is NOT rooted in EE but rather in environmental economics -- the philosophical and epistemological differences are immense... I suggest using the recent reader  of J Martinez Alier, et al Ecological Economics from the Ground Up.  He also has early texts from the 90s. Another text is: The Environmentalism of the Poor: A study of ecological conflicts and valuation  My own article : Community Forest Management: Can the green economy contribute to environmental justice?”, Natural Resources Forum, Vol. 37(3):200-210, 2013, (with Mario Fuente). (ISSN: 1477-8947). DOI: 10.1111/1477-8947.12010 (available on ResearchGate) is also useful

For the first question, the answer is yes. David William Pearce and David Pearce refer indeed to the same person.

As for the second question, the answer is not straightforward. To clarify this, let me respond first to Jean Claude Njomkap on the demarcation lines between 'Ecological Economics' (EE) and 'Green Economy' (GE), while providing Thawhidul Kabir with references. GE is a goal/objective to be achieved (policy issue), like Sustainable Development (SD). There are various conceptualisations of this goal and various proposals from various stakeholders in order to achieve it. Contributions (in terms of conceptualisations and proposals) from economists can be referred to as 'Green Economics' or 'Sustainability Economics'/Economics of Sustainability', and can be grouped into different schools, including especially Resource and Environmental Economics (REE), Ecological Economics (EE), and Social Ecological Economics (SEE). REE is rooted in Neoclassical Economics; EE is rooted in Ecology (See the paper 'Environmental Economics, Ecological Economics, and the Concept of Sustainable Development' by G. Munda, 1997); SEE builds on EE and emphasises neglected social issues. These schools could also be seen as sequential and linked stages in the the evolution of Green Economics. Thus, unlike GE that is a goal to be achieved, EE is one of the various schools of Green Economics as an academic discipline, whose subject is GE or SD. GE as a study subject for Green Economics can be clearly seen in a paper by Pearce, D. (1992) 'Green Economics',Environmental Values, 1(1). Note that the first school Green Economics is the focus in this paper: REE.

To continue responding to Thawhidul Kabir, it may then be difficult to say that the term GE emerged from EE (only) or not. GE was first employed by famous scholars in REE (David W. Pearce, Anil Markandya, Edward B. Barbier) in 1989. The GE concept is most often attributed particularly to David W. Pearce, a leading Resource and Environmental Economist. Yet, David W. Pearce is also one of the pioneers of EE through for example his paper 'Foundations of an ecological economics', Ecological Modelling, 38 (1987). However, unlike the leader of EE (Robert Costanza), David W. Pearce is not much known as an Ecological Economist. Earlier contributions of Costanza to EE include Costanza, R., 1989: What is ecological economics? Ecological Economics, 1(1); Costanza, R. et al., 1997: An Introduction to Ecological Economics (book), etc. Apart from REE and EE, all schools of Green Economics (Sustainability Economics) have GE as their subject, even though some scholars consider Green Economics as different from REE and EE (Kennet, M. & Heinemann, V., 2006. Green Economics: setting the scene. Aims, context, and philosophical underpinning of the distinctive new solutions offered by Green Economics; Cato, M.S., 2009. Green Economics: An Introduction to Theory, Policy and Practice; etc.). 

At the beginning, David Pearce (who unfortunately died too young) was a member of the group that founded the journal and the society for Ecological Economics around 1988-90. I mean Herman Daly, Bob Costanza, AnnMari Jansson, Dick Norgaards and some others, including myself. After 1994, he left the joint-editorship of the journal. He believed in what was called "weak sustainability" (substituting of manufactured capital for so-called natural capital), while we the ecological economist were more inclned towards a "strong sustainability" approach, and to a biophysical view of the economy, in terms of social metabolism (counting the flows of energy and materials).