Dear Bikash,

Let me participate through this modest comment on the importance of the subject you propose

The activities of the green economy are part of a green growth objective: it is to promote sustainable development and therefore sustainable for the environment in the long term.

Green growth is the green economy of the future. Beyond a fad, it will become an issue more vital to humanity. Recycling, wastewater reuse are only a few examples. With the increased demand due to population growth, commodity prices can only increase inexorably. This done, the green economy will become increasingly profitable, unprofitable technology solutions now become very profitable in the coming decades. Green economy shows us that innocence is over for humanity, the time of responsibility has come.

Green growth is to maximize economic growth and development, avoiding the imposition of unsustainable pressures on the quality and quantity of natural capital. It is also to benefit from the growth potential linked to the transition to a green economy

The green economy is to "improve the social welfare and equity by reducing significant environmental risks and resource shortages. "in its simplest expression, a green economy will be low-carbon production, efficient in the use of energy and socially inclusive

The green economy can be seen as an alternative vision for growth and development that can generate growth and improve the lives of people while respecting sustainable development. A green economy promotes three factors: sustainable economic and advanced and an environmental and social well-being.

With my best regards

Prof Bachir ACHOUR

Dear Bikash and Bachir, from my point of view: four cents:

a) the green economy is an attempt to keep the old car running longer because we were wrong in assuming environmental issues were minimal or non-existent for such a long time and kept them as externalities instead of having them as endogenous issues to the economic model.  We are fixing our old economy car and moving on without accepting clearly that we were wrong,, but given the circunstances it is a step forwards as it get as closer to true sustainability.

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

b) the green economy has a structure similar to the pure economic model but it is environmentally friendly now: just as Bachir said or described above:

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

c) we should not put again all our eggs in one basket again, while promoting the green economy we should work and develop a global and local plan to transition to a clean economy.

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_Based_Economy

and

d) For the green economy to succeed in the longterm it will need to be made fully socially friendly by making social issues endogenous to the green economy model in effects transforming iit nto a true sustainability model and avoid that way widespread social unsustainability.

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

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

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

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

 My apologies something happened in my post was incomplete:

d) For the green economy to succeed in the longterm it will need to be made fully socially friendly by making social issues endogenous to the green economy model in effects transforming iit nto a true sustainability model and avoid that way widespread social unsustainability.

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

Greetings Bakish and Bachir and have a nice day

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

 My apologies something happened in my post was incomplete:

d) For the green economy to succeed in the longterm it will need to be made fully socially friendly by making social issues endogenous to the green economy model in effects transforming iit nto a true sustainability model and avoid that way widespread social unsustainability.

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

Greetings Bakish and Bachir and have a nice day

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

Dear Bachir and Lucio,

Most respectfully I very much appreciate your explanations of the why and how of green economy with supporting materials. Thank you very much. 

Yet the pertinent question I raised is not about its concept and principle as an alternative strategy but whether this vision might achieve sustainable development or fall again into the trap of placing economic growth paradigm.

The discourse of unavoidable technological progress will severely limit our capacity to conceive of solutions outside of the economic sphere. Further  the weak sustainability approach advocated by UNEP green economy becomes redundant if we cannot substitute natural capital with physical capital. And strong sustainability approach will requires another paradigm shift in thinking globally and acting locally.  

As Albert Einstein rightly said, “the significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them”.

It is therefore yet to be seen how this green economy vision including those enshrined in the post 15 + SDGs agenda will withstand the test of time.  If not, who knows another alternative paradigm say bio- economy  may emerge to achieve the very goal of SD !

These are just my stray thoughts seeking your further insights and reactions if any.

Best regards,

Bikash   

Dear Bakish, I shared those papers to show that IT IS THE SAME OLD WINE IN A GREEN BOTTLE , but I used the expression of t"the same old car"; and to make an extension to Albert Einsteint's point "we should not expect the same old thinking to solve the problems it created"; and new way, systematic thinking, is needed, that is what all my papers are geared at to...and that is why I shared them. 

My approach is that if I have nothing to contribute, I do not criticize; and when I criticize I offer a way out or forward...which I do in all my papers.  If I am right, then what we are still being taught about economics and environmental issues and what eveer I was taught may be wrong. 

My uncle used to say "do not worry about those who act out of ignorance, worry about those acting on willful ignorance"; and sometimes when I see that we continue to use concepts we should know, especially at the academic level, they do not work or should not be expected to work I think about my uncle's statement and smile.

Thank your for creating the space to exchange ideas.

Respectfully yours;

Thank you so much Lucio for your excellent remarks , it is now loud and clear and I fully agree.

sincerely   

 This is a most logical and interesting question have asked myself, too...and yes, green economy may be the same old wine in green bottles or, even closer to the concept, the same old car that we are trying to fix to keep it moving on...the fact is that we may have too much conceptual and theoretical-methodological development and maybe too little action and policy implementation. However, more awareness should not do any harm, I suppose...and it may be worth to reach as many stakeholders as possible, by selling the same paradigm in various packs...

Thank you for your comment Simona. 

Increasing awareness of mistakes made when stating our models of thinking and acting and alternatives to the old way of thinking  that make business sense and are socially and environmentally friendly is the key.  The main goal in each of my papers is to highlight the sustainability road as a balancing option.  

Simone and friends you may find the following article interesting:

Expressing the Structural Nature of Development Discourse Analytical and Graphically Using a Qualitative Comparative Model of Thinking and Acting

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26613472_Expressing_the_Structural_Nature_of_Development_Discourse_Analytical_and_Graphically_Using_a_Qualitative_Comparative_Model_of_Thinking_and_Acting

Article Expressing the Structural Nature of Development Discourse An...

More important than the Brundtland pillars themselves are their interactions if you want to achieve ecodevelopment (early name of sustainable development). This is why we include Usufructal Technology and Participatory Governance in our ecodevelopment planning.

Good day Helene, I agree, the interactions are key, but to captuere those interactions you need systematic thinking, not additive thining becaue in additivie thinking to make it work we assumed interactions as zero/independency assumption.

A sustainability model is"

D = AB , this requires inclusion, participation, cooperation, optimization...

An additive model is

D = A + AB + B, where AB = 0 , Then you have exclusion, dominance syndrome, maximization,,,,

I think Helene and friends you will find the following article interesting:

Utilitarianism, Raw Liberalism, Moral Liberalism, and True Sustainability: Basic Paradigm Foundations, Changing Assumptions, and the Evolution of Development Paradigms

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281277111_Utilitarianism_Raw_Liberalism_Moral_Liberalism_and_True_Sustainability_Basic_Paradigm_Foundations_Changing_Assumptions_and_the_Evolution_of_Development_Paradigms

Wish a nice day to every one!

Article Utilitarianism, Raw Liberalism, Moral Liberalism, and True S...

Thanks Lucio, I will read your article with interest.

Definately not a new paradigm, in my opinion. Your metaphor is much closer to reality, Bikash, I think.

(I used a similar metaphor back in 2007: "It is quite clear that our plane, flying with an engine called Economy is in urgent need of a complete upgrading, the creaking parts will not be redone just by patching them up with fashionable new stickers, just as it is no help if the increasingly overweight passengers, having devoured their usual dinner, order an extra bio fitness meal.")

Dear Gergely and friends.  Twocomments:

a) Keep in mind that by 2007 the engine in that plane that Gergely describes was being painted green and unofficially we were already running on a green economy then, but people still twere hinking or treating as the old economy only model.  In the last Rio process with the endorsement of green growth the green economy became officially the new economy, but still they think of it or treat it as if they are dealing with old economy only issues, when they are eco-economic issues.  When you have time take a look at the ideas shared here in 2000.

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

b) Just at the old economy only model had races to the bottom(socially and environmental) the new economy, the eco-conomy or green economy should be expected to induce races to the bottom(social); and these social races to the bottom may be more severe than the ones that came before.

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

Wish you all a nice day.

Article An Overview of Some of the Policy Implications of the Eco-Ec...

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

Green Growth is possible. However, it cannot be driven by the global multinational corporates any more. Green growth can best happen at regional levels with the participation of communities and their networks. This kind of growth (as against perpetual financial growth) focuses on community wellbeing rather than enhancing the national GDP.

Interventions like community enterprises and permaculture are examples that need to be promoted through policies, as they allow local level development and sustainability. Green growth prerequisites knowledge and attitudinal changes among communities to conquer consumerism and resource intensive livelihoods that are being promoted by the present day dominant paradigm. Green growth also needs to promote niche level innovations for sustainability transitions.

Dear Chandani.  I agree green growth is possible and the question is "can it be made socially sustainable and therefore lasting?.  As green growth considers social issues exogenous issues and its goal is only to maximize green profits, we have to be aware of at least two issues:

a) it is being promoted and implemented without any systematic effort to ease a transition away from the paraidigm "More is better"

Substituting The More is Better Paradigm for The Less is Better Paradigm: Identifying Key Transitional Problems

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/281276526_Substituting_The_More_is_Better_Paradigm_for_The_Less_is_Better_Paradigm_Identifying_Key_Transitional_Problems

b) As it is not socially friendly by design(only economy and environment are endogenous issues) so it has what I call "a creeping nature" and eat away social protections as social agents need to be passive components of the model to work well.  If green growth is implemented in socially friendly ways it can be sustainable, but socially sustainable ways may not be seen as profitable in green profits terms of green businessmen would desire.

A Qualitative Comparative Way of Pointing Out the Expected Social Externalities Associated With the Creep in Nature of Current Eco-Economic Approaches to Development Issues.

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/281244571_A_Qualitative_Comparative_Way_of_Pointing_Out_the_Expected_Social_Externalities_Associated_With_the_Creep_in_Nature_of_Current_Eco-Economic_Approaches_to_Development_Issues

c) And from my point of view, socially friendly green growth is a model that approaches sustainability;Eco

-

Economic Development Under Social Constraints: How to

Re

-

Direct it toward Sustainability

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/282828124_ART9c

Article Substituting The More is Better Paradigm for The Less is Bet...

Article A Qualitative Comparative Way of Pointing Out the Expected S...

Data Eco-Economic Development Under Social Constraints: How to Re...

There are a wide variety of different streams, some conservative, some reformist, some radical. The former are usually called "Environmental Economics", the last "Ecological Economics". For a survey, have a look at the references in my academia.edu paper 'The Poverty of Environmental Economics' or on my LSE blog.

My position is that orthodox economics is unable to adequately cope with environmental resources that are not only scarce but depleted. These will require alternative allocation mechanisms, and corresponding political processes.

https://www.academia.edu/2424681/The_Poverty_of_Environmental_Economics

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/economics-is-contradictory-and-will-never-be-able-to-properly-consider-the-environment/

Good day Jon.  I agree and the Bruntland commission indicated in 1987 that the model was not working and needed to be made inclusive meaning socially and environmentally friendly(making social and environmental issues endogenous issues). 

And that has not happened yet(1987-2015).   That in my view as I indicate in my paper "Complex and Man-made Markets: Are We Currently Approaching Sustainability in a Backward and More Chaotic Way in Terms of Economic Thinking?" is forcing us to approach sustainability backwards. 

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

Whether it is called environmental economics or ecological economics the fact is they are formal attempts to patch the old model to reflect now environmental concerns, and to work they need to assume social extenality neutrality.

Have a nice day Jon and everyone!

.

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

Dear Bikash,

You ask a very pertinent question, and here I add my two cents to this interesting discussion. As of your initial question whether a green economy as portrayed by UNEP is an old wine in green bottle, unfortunately all evidence points towards that direction. Let me point out just three issues with this green economy: 1) mainly uses (monetary) growth indicators to measure advancement in human wellbeing, therefore confusing oekonomia with chrematisics; 2) emphasis on technology is misplaced, no discussion on the distributional issues of technology creation (democratic vs authoritarian techniques); and 3) limited acknowledgement of entropic limits to the human endeavor (sources and sinks).

As for alternative views, with several colleagues we wrote this short piece called Pillars for a Flourishing Earth, where we deconstruct every (grey, brown, green, blue) growth delusion and introduce a set of criteria that might help us navigate these times.

best regards,

Article Pillars for a flourishing Earth: Planetary boundaries, econo...

Dear Nicolas

Thank you so much for your thoughts and sharing your seminal article, I really enjoyed reading it and gained valuable insights. The article has raised a number of pertinent issues in a compelling way to argue why the so called green economy is not convincing. It has offered some basic pillars for a flourishing or even sustainable Earth that must come though responsible rethinking of the economy in the light of ecological economics away from the assumptions of neo-classical economics.

It is however yet to be seen how the global community will withstand the test of time to bring about such real change in rethinking and translating them into policy- program- action continuum. Otherwise, as the article rightly warns, “ How many more slogans are needed before governments accept that real change is needed”.

Sincere regards 

Excellent article Nicolas, my warm greetings

A respectful summary and comment from me here:

Between humans and nature there is an economy which has failed badly leading to environmental deterioration and human poverty; and need to be fixed.

The fixing put forward by UNEP and the Rio group recently is lacking and you clearly point out why.

Let’s assume that your rethinking to the economy between nature and humans is right and hence this new eco-economy or green economy your group proposes is better than the UNEP eco-economy.

Still it is an eco-economic approach albeit closer to sustainability than the old economic model and better that the UNEP one, and using Biskan terminoloty, perhaps in a shinnier green bottle.

Let's assume that now this improved green economy promotes and enhances environmental goods and services locally and globally, how do we make sure this eco-economy is socially friendly too and use to stop and promote the elimination of human/social degradation?

From my point of view, the original market assumption that nature and humans were there to produced goods and services under social and environmental neutral externality is the one that led to over exploitation of humans and environments.

And this now we know makes those economic models distorted as their pricing do not reflect social and environmental margins; and this affect all economic models including those willing to pay models mentioned there…Perhaps some thinking about how eco-econmic pricing would work within your framework would strenghen it or be helpful....

As food for thoughts ideas on how the economy can be seen working between environment and humans in a conjunctural relationship; and about how sustainability pricing may work can be found in these papers:

Eco-Economic Development Under Social Constraints: How to Redirect it Towards Sustainability?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282828124_ART9c

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

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

My warm greetings to all

Data Eco-Economic Development Under Social Constraints: How to Re...

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

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

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

Dear Bikash, in case you have not read it, I think you will find this article interesting, it showls one way the global community should go:

The Urgent Need to Start Building the Basic Foundations of Global Sustainability

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281276098_The_Urgent_Need_to_Start_Building_the_Basic_Foundations_of_Global_Sustainability

Have a nice day!

Article The Urgent Need to Start Building the Basic Foundations of G...

Dear Lucio

 Many thanks for enriching me with your thought provoking articles on renewed thinking and approach towards sustainability . I just read one and will do the rest with interest. I really appreciate your valuable contribution to sustainability literature which I consider can go a long way as an approach to make a real difference if  the fundamental change desired for such path is accepted. With my best regards 

Shadow economy measurement( as volume of total undeclared labor incomes), in an international context, could be realized by using a composite index based on the following three components:

-shadow economy percentage share to GDP of a given country;

-shadow economy per capita in the respective country;

-the percentage share of the given country in the total value of shadow economy of a certain group of countries (e.g. EU 28).

Such an indicator takes into account both relative and absolute size of shadow economies for each country and offers the advantage of using different weighting for the composite index components.

I presume your answer to shadow economy is wrongly placed here ! it is out of context to my question.    

https://marianamazzucato.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/BEIS-INDUSTRIAL-STRATEGY-GREEN-PAPER-CONSULTATION-RESPONSE-15-April-2017.pdf

Dear Bikash, good day....

I truely appreciate your comment.....

In the coming months I will expand the ideas in previously published articles to share more food for thoughts on the green economy and in the sustainability front.....

Have a nice day!