Yes definitely there will be a special change

As per my opinion, intially it may look that the results are positive but not in the long run.

Dear Prof Dariusz:

Innovative ecological technologies are created based on being aware on all lives' safty on this earth will be definite sure to enable the achievement of the sustainable development of global economy.

As our world has been developed by modern innovative technology, and overspending on material development has increased tremendous and serious problems caused by natural and human beings disasters which are increasingly worsening in relation to economy, society and the environment affecting all lives not only in Thailand but throughout the world. (cited in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311677101_Sufficiency_economy_and_sustainability)

Thank you very much Prof. and you are very excellent!

Best wishes,

Siribuppa

The question is:

"Will innovative, ecological technologies enable achieving sustainable development of national economies and the global economy?"

Do you mean 'ecologically benign technologies', or do you mean technologies that are primarily ecological in principal. A house built of straw bale may be the first, whereas riverine plantings to decrease the sediment load in a river may be the second. I'm assuming the first for the purpose of this answer.

I'm going to say first off that I'm a civil engineer, with 25+ years of experience in land development and water resources. All of my career, I have been designing 'technology' of one kind or another. I have done river restoration using natural systems, stormwater management that doesn't use pipes or ponds, and the like - both 'green' and 'grey'. And none of that is what we need to have Sustainable Development.

People use their time to meet their wants and needs directly, and/or we use our time to convert resources into the means to meet our wants and needs indirectly. Human Development tends to focus on the first part of that statement, enhancing how effectively people are able to use their time to meet their wants and needs. Technological Development tends to focus on the second part of the statement, enhancing how efficiently people are able to use their time to convert resources into the means to meet their wants and needs. I take the question to focus primarily on Technological Development, with a caveat that the T.D. is to consider ecological limitations.

For that to work, we would have to ensure that the Ecological Footprint of the community is smaller than the Biocapacity of the land being managed by the community, and that the technological development would have to focus on ensuring the Daly's Rules are being maintained. Using the time used within the community to meet needs, one can convert all social and ecological aspects into a single unit of measurement, and find alternative approaches that will produce the greatest improvement in how much time is required to meet needs. Non-renewable resources being extracted would have to incur a time-penalty, and consumption in excess of the Biocapacity of the land would have a time cost. I've attached a paper that goes into the engineering side of all of this.

The trouble is that isn't enough. We would have to also measure how much time would be used within the community to meet needs, as if all needs were being met. This involves Human Development professionals, too, like teachers, mental health professionals, sociologists, and the like. I'm attaching a paper that explores this, too.

Technological Development will have a very limited impact on the well-being of the wealthy - we have lots of infrastructure already, and a little bit more won't be doing much for us, relative to the impact on the ecosystem. For example, the slope of the Resource/Time Use curve for the richest quintile in Canada is about -1 minute/day/Global Hectare. A change in consumption of 1 GHa/ca (about 10% of consumption by the wealthiest quintile) will result in about 1 minute per day (about than 0.07% of their time) change in time use. And while the impact of Technological Development is greater on the poor (the first solar panel or radio in a village will make a bigger impact than the last one), the overall improvements are limited, due to the existing obstructions within the community that prevent needs from being met.

Wealthy and poor people will benefit somewhat equally from Human Development, and the potential improvements are far higher than one can get from technology alone. For example, that wealthiest quintile in Canada is about 80% effective at meeting it's needs. That is to say, the fraction of time used at meeting needs that is not associated with symptoms of unmet needs, is about 80%. If one were to have all of their needs met, one would need to use 1/80%, or about 125% of the time currently used to meet needs. Symptoms of unmet needs include insomnia and fatigue, obesity, crime, malnutrition, homelessness, etc.

Changing effectiveness from 79% to 80% for the richest quintile will make a difference of about 3 min./d/ca. This is done by Human Development, identifying and removing the obstructions within the community that prevent people from meeting their needs, and generally requires few if any additional extractions of resources. To make a similar impact on the quality of life in Canada, a 1% change in effectiveness of the community at meeting their needs would equate to a 20% increase in resource efficiency.

The low hanging fruit is not technological, or even ecologically benign technology. The low hanging fruit comes from Human Development. And that's from an engineering perspective.

Of course. And many of the solutions to reach the Sustainable Development Goals must come from chemical science and industry and an interaction of both. See reference of my article here (where you can unload it): Article AGENDA 2030: A Challenge for Chemical Science and industry

pushing green economy philosophy certainly ecological technological innovations will play role in global economy. Even taxation , revenue sharing, CSR programmes by industries are already link to environmental scores.

Underground CO2 storage is not the optimal nor definitive solution. Sustainable solutions come form CO2 capture, fixing it by plants and trees, or chemically converting it in chemicals. Some examples are given here:

Article Innovative Chemistry is required to fight Climate Change

Mr Towe. Of course earth climate has a natural course but human action has an influence. It is proven that the industrial era has worsened the situation and temperature has increased more rapidly than naturally.

Thank you for participating in the discussion. Your remarks, conclusions, theses, research results, scientific considerations are very interesting and enrich the discussions in this topic. I invite you to continue the discussion. People interested in this subject.

We must not forget that climate change is only one of the many aspects of sustainability. Sustainability is much more than climate change and requires the development (or resurge?) of a circular economy. When I was a child the vendor of drinks in glass bottles (not plastic) recycled and reused the bottles after cleaning them. We could learn from the past...

No es utopía el desarrollo sostenible. Solo es buscar el equilibrio sustentable de las crecientes demandas de las poco reguladas poblaciones mundiales. Las inteligencias artificiales, las tecnos de octava generación, las aflicciones médicas,, la movilidad humana y sus resguardos temporales avanzan adaptándose y adoptando perfiles y actitudes ante los innegables cambios de Natura de nuestra Tierra y su quizá interminable viaje espacial por el disco del Sol.

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? Please, answer, comments. I invite you to the discussion

Thank you very much for your answers, for comments and interesting scientific information.

These types of mutual discussions lead to interesting, jointly formulated conclusions.

Because the subject is not exhausted and is very important so I invite you to continue the discussion with people interested in the above issues.

I invite you to the discussion.

Dear Prof.

I am reading green market economy now to help add a bit of ideas on it.

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/126GER_synthesis_en.pdf

Thank you

Siribuppa

Also this paper to support your question raised:

Pan, W., Pan, W., Hu, C., Tu, H., Zhao, C., Yu, D., Xiong, J. & Zheng, G. (2018). Assessing the Green Economy in China: An Improved Framework. Journal of Cleaner Production. 680-691.

With reference to its conclusion:

on No. four "(4) Given the empirical findings of the study, three

main policy suggestions for developing the green economy in

China. Evaluating the development of the provincial

green economy, and the Chinese government needs to pay

more attention to regions and provinces. Second, the

development of long-term low-carbon economy technology

that will support the sustainable development of a green

economy. Third, as pioneers in green economy, the examples of Beijing and Tianjin should be studied and promoted" (Pan, et al., 2018).

Thank you

Siribuppa

Dear Prof Kenneth:

According to the UNEP stated on p.9 of the document enclosed:

What is a Green Economy? UNEP defines a green economy as one that results in improved human well-being and social equity, while significantly reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities. In its simplest expression, a green economy can be thought of as one which is low carbon, resource efficient and socially inclusive. In a green economy, growth in income and employment should be driven by public and private investments that reduce carbon emissions and pollution, enhance energy and resource efficiency, and prevent the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services. These investments need to be catalysed and supported by targeted public expenditure, policy reforms and regulation changes. The development path should maintain, enhance and, where necessary, rebuild natural capital as a critical economic asset and as a source of public benefits, especially for poor people whose livelihoods and security depend on nature. ........

Link

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/126GER_synthesis_en.pdf

Thank you Prof. for your interest.

Siribuppa

And this is what is in my my introduction:

INTRODUCTION

Crises become accelerated in global contexts, for instance with respect to climate, biodiversity, fuel, food, water, and of late the financial system and the economy as a whole. The world economy struggles to recover and grow in it attempt by both governments and the private sector to make a transition to a green economy in time to engage these challenges. Green economy is relevant to all economies, be they state or more market-led. Investing a green economy enhances long-run economic performance and can increase total global wealth (e.g. stocks of renewable resources, reducing environmental risks, and rebuilding capacity to generate future prosperity), according to macroeconomic model in the Green Economy Report documents (UNEP, 2011). The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the World Trade Organization (WTO) must be achieved by 2030, and is aimed at fostering stable, predictable and equitable trading relations across the world (WTO, 2018). Its universal agenda must be implemented by all countries to achieve the SDGs by 2030 (SDSN, 2018).

The utility of the green market economy (GME) can be explained in reference the United Nations-Department of Economic and Social Affairs set of 15 Goals (UN-DESA, 2015) in terms of an awareness of the global economic condition that and can contribute constructively to social and environmental growth, the elimination of poverty and hunger, and the sustainability of decent work, (an economic perspective covering Goal 1, Goal 2, and Goal 8); it can also contribute towards human healthiness and well-being, equitable lifelong learning, gender equality, equal access to affordable and clean energy, sustainable innovative infrastructure and industrialization, equality within and among countries, sustainable cities and communities, peaceful, justice and strong institutions, and global partnerships for “sustainable development” (a social perspective consisting of Goal 3, Goal 4, Goal 5, Goal 7, Goal 9, Goal 10, Goal 11, Goal 16 and Goal 17: UN-DESA, 2015); and included goals, ensure clean water and sanitation, responsible consumption and production, the combating of climate change, security of life below water, and life on land (an environmental perspective presenting Goal 6, Goal 12, Goal 13, Goal 14, and Goal 15: UN-DESA, 2015).

Dear Prof:

I have only market economy:

Global market economy (market-led country) is an economic system

interve ned by government (or central planning) limits market freedom occasionally in balancing comp etition to prevent monopolies. The collective interactions of individual citizens and businesses seek their own

advantages. It allows economic laws of supply (e.g. natural resources, capital, labour) and demand (purchases by consumers, businesses, government) to direct the production of goods and services; the free interplay of supply and demand in order to achieve social aims; the production of the most desired goods and services in the most efficient way returning a profit; innovation in creating new products; and knowledge management of the most successful businesses that investing in top companies for their increased quality for production.

(PDF) Strategic SME cultural agency & global market economy. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320474643_Strategic_SME_cultural_agency_global_market_economy [accessed Nov 18 2018].

The World Trade Organization (WTO) is the only global international organization dealing with the rules of trade between nations. At its heart are the WTO agreements, negotiated and signed by the bulk of the world’s trading nations and ratified in their parliaments. The goal is to ensure that trade flows as smoothly, predictably and freely as possible. It has a crucial role to accelerate progress in achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to be achieved by 2030 by fostering stable, predictable and equitable trading relations across the world in promoting sustainable development (WTO, 2018).

I know it will take very long time.......till 2030.

Through literature len, there are many problems related to sustainable development as stated:

However, to function, a green market economy (GME) requires world political leaders, civil society and leading businesses to collaboratively engage in the transition, and the addition of a sustained effort on the part of policy makers and their constituents to rethink and redefine traditional measures of wealth, prosperity, and well-being. This may be difficult, for instance where political administrations have policy ambiguities due to a lack of political administrative coherence, typified by the notion of “joined up governance” (Klievink and Janssen, 2009). This can be shown in the case of China, for instance. On the one hand the country is currently pioneering a new sustainable development model, formally accepted in 2002, which has the ability to over-come current environmental and resource management problems, while achieving improvements in resource productivity and eco-efficiency (Geng and Doberstein, 2008). On the other hand, there is a controversial policy implication of the Chinese government in which they place more reliance on technological progress than on the need to pay more attention to regions and provinces in relation to the impact of industrial structure and energy consumption structure concerning a long-term low-carbon economy technology and the sustainable development (Pan, W., Pan, W., Hu, C., Tu, H., Zhao, C., Yu, D., Xiong, J. & Zheng, G., 2019) of a green economy.

As well as in emerging markets, emerging economies or developing countries are more sophisticated in green market practices as such the green economy concept has failed as other resource management reforms of the past in Indonesia, uncertain markets and globally, that have ignored political and economic contingencies (Castree, 2008; Swainson, & Mahanty, 2018). An effective green economy model becomes doubtful because it ignores the complexities of dealing with the conflicts; tradeoffs and power struggles that it seeks to change (Swainson, & Mahanty, 2018). Funding bodies are often reluctant to support complex and long-term reform processes (Bourguignon & Sundberg, 2007). Top private companies are more reluctant to invest in this scope, which poses a fundamental resourcing problem for the early stages of green economy reforms (Swainson, & Mahanty, 2018). Overall, in the 2018 Index and Report found that no country is on track to achieve all of the SDGs, and progress is slowest on the environment-focused goals (SDSN, 2018).

Should economics in the 21st century change in a way that would help achieve sustainable economic development?

In the greatest generalization, economics should help reconcile two opposing issues: How to create and deliver through limited markets economic goods, created on the basis of limited resources to meet unlimited human needs. Economics should also help in formulating the answer to the question: what, how and for whom to produce, produce, offer? On the other hand, in the 21st century, the economy should help answer the question: how should domestic and international economies develop in order to achieve sustainable economic development taking into account the issues of ecology, renewable energy sources, increasing the use of secondary raw materials, development of technological innovations, ecological and materials that will enable achieving sustainable development, i.e. such economic development in which the negative effects of this development for the natural environment will be gradually reduced.

This is a very important question in the context of the changing economies of the 21st century, in the context of the current fourth technological revolution, Industry 4.0.

Apparently, we are now living in the era of the fourth technological revolution, known as Industry 4.0.

The previous three technological revolutions:

1. The industrial revolution of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, determined mainly by the industrial application of the invention of a steam engine.

2. Electricity era of the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century.

3. The IT revolution of the second half of the twentieth century determined by computerization, the widespread use of the Internet and the beginning of the development of robotization.

The current fourth technological revelation, known as Industry 4.0, is motivated by the development of the following factors:

- artificial intelligence,

- cloud computing,

- machine learning,

- Big Data database technologies,

- Internet of Things.

On the basis of the development of these IT instruments and technologies, business analytics of companies such as Business Intelligence and the above-mentioned areas have been dynamically developing in recent years.

In view of the above, I turn to you with the following question: In what direction will the current technological revolution, known as Industry 4.0, develop?

Will "ECONOMY" change its character, its functions in the context of changing economies in the 21st century, in the context of the current fourth technological revolution Industry 4.0, in the context of the growing importance of renewable energy, environmental protection, to reduce the Earth's greenhouse effect and increase the scale of sustainable implementation development?

Please, answer, comments. I invite you to the discussion.

The issue of a possible change in the role of the economy in terms of striving to create conditions for the implementation of sustainable development is very important in the 21st century. For the development of the concept of sustainable development should take into account economic conditions in the context of climate change, global warming, rising global temperature, the progressing greenhouse effect of the Earth and the associated new climatic disasters is probably the most important topic for discussion, research and for human activity in XXI 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.

Will "ECONOMY" help in the 21st century solve these problems and help develop new economic formulas that will generate global sustainable economic development?

Please, answer, comments. I invite you to the discussion.

Is it time to change the civilization development strategy globally and focus on sustainable socio-economic development?

Will "ECONOMY" help in this, will "NEW ECONOMY" help in the 21st century?

Yes, it is necessary to change the development strategy based on intensifying the exploitation of the Earth's resources on the sustainable development strategy. It is necessary to develop new energy technologies based on renewable energy sources to slow down the progressing greenhouse effect of the Earth in order to reduce the risk of dramatic natural cataclysms. It is necessary to develop ecological innovations, while it may not be too late. It is necessary to save the Earth from destruction for future generations.

The 21st century is the last moment to introduce global sustainable development based on the development of renewable energy and ecological innovations. Sustainable development should be analyzed and measured in correlation with the analysis of economic growth and the share of individual sectors in the country's economic development, including the transformation of traditional energy sources into renewable energy, environment reclamation and recovery of recyclable materials, and ecological innovations.

I invite you to the discussion

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?

Please, answer, comments. I invite you to the discussion

How to define precise measurable factors for the process of sustainable economic and ecological development in the context of the science of the "new economy"?

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 view of the above, the current question is: How to define precise measurable factors for the process of sustainable economic and ecological development?

Please, answer, comments. I invite you to the discussion.

I wish you all good and best regards

Yes, green innovation will lead to global sustainable development.

Yes, Dear Kenneth M Towe.

However, in many countries ecological innovations are developed, renewable energy sources are being developed. For max. decades of traditional energy sources based on minerals will be exhausted. Agricultural arable areas are also likely to shrink. Economics will force an increase in the use of secondary raw materials and reductions in more and more expensive emissions of harmful waste. So in the new pro-ecological economy synergies of pro-ecological different activities will be realized. This synergy may perhaps generate the necessary added value. this added value may, at least partly, help to realize the beautiful ideas of sustainable socio-economic development. Will this happen now? But everything should be done to make it possible, if it ever was possible.

I invite you to the discussion

In my opinion, it is good that there was a discussion in the question of this query.

This is a very interesting and scientifically important topic.

Because the topic is very important so I still read the answers, I follow the interesting discussion.

The above discussion inspired me to the following considerations:

Please, answer the following questions:

What pro-ecological activities can and should be implemented by the World Bank to inspire and effectively act on the issue of the sustainable pro-ecological development of the World?

According to the announcement of the President of the World Bank, from 2020 on, the expenditure on pro-ecological activities will be doubled.

Among other things, the World Bank will allocate USD 100 billion for investments in the public sector and additional USD billion for pro-ecological projects on various topics that are supposed to implement and inspire changes in the new green economy to ultimately reduce greenhouse gas emissions on Earth and to slow down increase in average temperature on the Earth's surface.

However, what specific pro-ecological investments should be implemented in order to achieve the intended results? How should those pro-ecological projects be run and in which topics, eg renewable energy sources, creation and implementation of ecological innovations, technologies and pro-ecological materials, etc.?

What pro-ecological activities can and should be implemented by the World Bank to inspire and effectively act on the issue of the sustainable pro-ecological development of the World?

Please reply. I invite you to the discussion

The World Bank isn't in a position to do much of anything useful on that front. People have to live well within their means, and not reduce ecological services to produce economical output. That means focussing on Quality of Life, not standard of living. Increasing spending only does that if it is strategically directed - a carte-blanche policy will miss the mark in most places it is applied.

It is considered a 3 legged stool because you can't deal with only one part at a time - it must be social, economic, and ecological simultaneously.

The choices are ALL simultaneous - there is no problem I can conceive of that will have a strictly economic OR ecological OR social solution (please prove me wrong). The whole point of Sustainability is to recognize that all solutions to all problems involve all legs together. If you can't see that, then you're talking about something else, and slapping a green label on it.

Actually, we're not asking you to diminish your quality of life - we're asking you to reduce your standard of living to what you can support, and increase your quality of life at the same time. While not simple, it's not hard, either.

Does the State you live in have an ecological footprint smaller than it's biocapacity? Then you are consuming resources from the future or from somewhere else, and at some point, those resources won't be available to you. It is in your enlightened self-interest to reduce (as a community) your consumption to what you can manage.

Are all of the people in your community able to meet all of their needs in 24 hours per day? Why not? What are the obstructions that prevent that? Hint: sexism, racism, able-ism, alcoholism, ignorance, etc are the symptoms, not the causes. I'm an engineer - I can't solve social problems, and I'm not going to pretend I can. But that will do far more than making a better widget for improving quality of life.

'We' is humanity as a whole. We will decide. If we decide badly, then our children will have much less quality of life than we have today. If we decide well, then we will have more. If we decide not to decide, that's a bad decision, and it has been since about 1970 in the US, and since about 2000 in Canada. This is nothing new, we just chose not to react in a small way 40 years ago, so we're now tasked with reacting in a much bigger way now. And we can choose to do nothing again, but each time we choose that, we get closer to having no choices at all.

Historically, the choices were made by people with money to generate more wealth - typically concentrated among the investors. We know today that isn't good enough, and we'll have to do better.

This takes foresight (something politicians lack, by their very nature), courage (again, something most politicians lack), and understanding. The political route follows the will of the people; it doesn't lead the will, and people want to keep doing what they have always done, even if that is going to lead to serious problems in the future. Which is why I research Sustainability Engineering - I am convinced Sustainability can only be achieved by all professions doing all they can. Engineers are currently tasked with ensuring the application of science is safe - that is being expanded to future generations as well.

For example, there is a group called 'Global Association of Transition Engineers' - we understand that all infrastructure that is being built today is doing so in an energy-rich setting, but it will get it's first maintenance in an energy-poor setting. So that means we are designing in such a way that the maintenance and operation requires much less energy than the construction.

The above discussion inspired me to the following considerations:

Should richer countries support poorer countries in the development of environment-friendly technologies?

In my opinion, renewable energy sources should be developed on the basis of various pro-ecological technologies and ecological innovations. Which technological solutions will be developed in particular countries depends on many factors, ie determinants according to which individual countries differ in terms of production potential, development of specific industries, equipment in particular production factors and financial possibilities. Rich countries characterized by higher incomes should support the development of pro-ecological technologies in poorer countries characterized by lower incomes. International cooperation in this area should be resolved.

In view of the above, I would like to ask you: Should richer countries support poorer countries in the development of environment-friendly technologies?

Please, answer, comments. I invite you to the discussion.

At present, new ecological innovations are needed, among others in the field of new technologies for the automation of waste segregation.

The problem of effective waste segregation and management of waste management is particularly important in many developed and developing countries.

The topic is important because it largely concerns the issues of ecology, environmental protection and the possibility of implementation into national economies of sustainable development according to the concept of a new, green economy.

In my opinion, the answer to this question is particularly important in the context of the following issues:

- improving the process of effective waste segregation,

- recovery from waste of secondary raw materials that may be recycled and produce new products on their basis,

- ecologically safe removal and neutralization of harmful, toxic waste,

- environmental protection and reclamation of a devastated environment, eg in garbage dumps, mine waste dumps and industrial waste dumps,

- biological treatment of water, including rivers, lakes and reduction of garbage and waste discharged into the seas and oceans,

- development of renewable energy sources and energy based on safe incineration of waste that will not be subject to secondary recycling,

- production of biocompost from food waste for use in the process of soil fertilization,

- application of technological advances, auto-tinting and robotization of the waste segregation process,

- etc.

I believe that it is necessary to apply appropriate waste management techniques due to the need to develop a new green economy, ie to implement the principles of sustainable development. It is necessary to minimize and limit the negative effects of climate change, generated by the progressive greenhouse effect of the Earth, which is rapidly accelerating global warming.

Improvement of waste management techniques should be implemented through the increase of automation, computerization and robotization in the field of planning and logistics of this process.

In view of the above, I am asking you: How to improve the waste segregation system?

Please, answer, comments. I invite you to the discussion.

In addition, I note the interesting discussion inspired me to the following considerations:

What were the projects of architectural eco-innovations created?

Architectural ecological innovations

Sustainable Green City Project of The Future

Perhaps the development of architectural eco-innovations will in the future be recognized as one of the most important pro-ecological innovations as instruments for reducing negative aspects of the progressing global warming.

In connection with the progressing process of global warming, the importance of creating and implementing eco-innovations, including architectural eco-innovations, is growing.

Currently, projects are being created: City of tommorow, Eco City, Vertical Forest, Sustainable Green City etc.

Therefore, I am asking you with the following query:

Do architectural eco-innovations belong to those areas of pro-ecological innovations that can slow down the progressing process of global warming?

Will architectural eco-innovations save cities from the adverse effects of climate change?

Please reply. I invite you to the discussion

Those are good questions - all of the concrete and asphalt that I design today will not be replaced with concrete or asphalt when it reaches it's end-of-life, and we don't really know what it will be replaced with. That's the underlying understanding of GATE - the Global Association of Transition Engineers.

And yes, you're talking about life-cycle accounting - we do that, too - cradle to cradle.

Nice to see that you don't underestimate the problem.

The reality is in the potholes. It is understood that the benefit to the community to keep the infrastructure is meaningfully less than the cost to the community to maintain it. So it doesn't get serviced, and a piece of Americana history fades, just like any ghost town. What you are witnessing is a stage of degrowth.

Sustainability advocates would take it farther, and say we should have intelligent degrowth, where we work out which infrastructure is providing what benefits and at what costs (both now and in some reasonable future), and then decommission what isn't going to be of benefit to our communities. That's hard, because of exactly what is happening to Route 66. There are emotional connections that don't have economic equivalents, and the benefits aren't strictly financial. Including that social component is hard, and slow. Maybe, with such an analysis, we would find that Route 66 is definitely worth maintaining, but some bridge to no-where should be taken down and used for parts.

Sustainable Development is about far more than just climate science - if it were only about the weather, it would be far simpler to achieve.

Green revolution, green innovation

The above question inspired me to the following considerations:

Is sustainable ecological pro-ecological development based on the concept of a new, green economy necessary to avoid a global climate disaster?

Sustainable proecological economic development based on the concept of a new, green economy regarding entire national economies and future global economies is a necessary future that must be realized in the 21st century if humanity wants to avoid a global climate disaster. Sustainable ecological economic development is based primarily on the creation, development and implementation of large-scale ecological innovations, renewable energy technologies, reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, automation and robotization of the process of sorting waste, recovery of recyclable materials, reclamation of a devastated natural environment, afforestation of post-industrial areas, development of electromobility etc. Apparently humanity has only been a decade of time to implement this plan in order to avoid a global climate disaster resulting from the increasingly faster global warming. According to World Wide Fund for Nature (https://cop.wwf.pl/en) humanity is already an endangered species in the 21st century!

In view of the above, the current question is: Is sustainable ecological pro-ecological development based on the concept of a new, green economy necessary to avoid a global climate disaster?

Please, answer, comments. I invite you to the discussion.

In addition, I note the interesting discussion inspired me to the following considerations:

Can we still avoid a global climatic catastrophe and what should be done to avoid it?

Humanity has reportedly only had a decade of time for the necessary changes in the energy sector to avoid a global climatic catastrophe

Much has to change in consumer awareness, business must change and different social groups should force policies and change legal regulations. It is necessary to develop co-financing of investment projects in the field of renewable energy sources by the state from public funds. In addition, businesses must see this business. The development of renewable energy sources should be profitable, and it is not because it is cheaper to mine minerals, to devastate the natural environment. It is cheap to run classic energy based on mineral combustion because this classic energy and mining industry of hard and brown coal, oil refinery industry, automotive industry of vehicles equipped with internal combustion engines etc. is not burdened with the costs of natural environment devastation, costs of treatment of people who suffer from due to poor air, smog and no negative effects of global warming. If the mining, energy, processing and automotive industries were burdened with these costs, then it would not be worthwhile to devastate and pollute the natural environment. Then it would be more profitable to develop energy and industry based on renewable energy sources. Inventions of electricity have over 100 years of history. 100 years ago, electric cars should be produced, but the oil business this scenario of more sustainable development has crossed out. Therefore, for over 100 years, archaic energy based on the burning of minerals has been developed. During these 100 years, the average temperature of the Earth's surface has increased by 1 degree ° C. From specific scientific studies, it appears that humanity is only 12 years left to make the necessary changes, to switch energy and industry to renewable energy sources and the automotive industry to electromobility, to reduce poor quality of stoves and domestic ovens, on the development of large and small, home solar, wind and other power plants. At the same time, investment projects in renewable energy sources should be widely developed and entire economies should switch to sustainable pro-ecological development according to the concept of a green, new economy. If during this time these changes are not implemented then the average temperature of the Earth until 2030 will increase by another min. 1 degree ° C and then in the following years the greenhouse effect will accelerate and the problem of global warming will become an irreversible process, which will mean the widespread apocalyptic climate disasters covering most of the Earth's surface before the end of the 21st century.

In view of the above, the current question is: Can we still avoid a global climatic catastrophe and what should be done to avoid it?

Please, answer, comments. I invite you to the discussion.

"Is sustainable ecological pro-ecological development based on the concept of a new, green economy necessary to avoid a global climate disaster?"

No. We need to understand cause and effect; what is the problem, and what is the symptom of the problem. In this case 'acute global climate disaster' is a result of demanding more from the ecological systems of the world than they can support. It doesn't matter if we look at soil loss, climate change, plastic islands in the ocean, the collapse of open ocean fisheries, the rate of species extinction - they all come from the same problem. You can't solve any of these symptoms in isolation - there is only one cause for all of those effects, and our consumption habits are the only way to change that. Will having a 'new green economy' change those consumption habits? Only if we let it. In which case, we wouldn't need a 'new economy', we would just have to cause the habits to change.

Pro ecological development isn't required. Just be not anti-ecological. Right now, the way we measure the economy allows us to neglect the ecological systems we depend on. We've come up with 'environmental economics' as a first point of contact, but it isn't enough. It's not a 'new economics' - it's complete accounting we need. We really do know how to do it, we just don't wanna.

Like my 13 yr old, and her chores. As long as Mommy will come in an pick up after her, she's happy to let it slide. Well, we can tell that Mother Nature isn't prepared to pick up all the crap we dish out, and pretty soon we'll see what happens when She can't keep up for long enough that we see it. We've assumed that we have access to both an infinite sink and infinite source, until it's gone, and then we act all surprised and indignant that 'someone' should have done something.

What are the key determinants of the implementation of sustainable pro-ecological development according to the concept of green economy?

In my opinion, such factors as effective waste segregation, recycling, reduction of plastic packaging, development of renewable energy sources, electromobility in motorization, afforestation, architectural ecological innovations, etc. are one of the most important factors to enable real implementation of sustainable pro-ecological development based on a new, green economy.

Effective segregation of rubbish, recycling, reduction of plastic packaging is one of the most important factors for the implementation of sustainable pro-ecological development.

These are the necessary determinants of the real implementation of sustainable pro-ecological development based on the concept of green, new economics.

According to the findings of the last UN Climate Summit held in Katowice in December 2018, it is necessary to gradually withdraw from the production and use of plastic packaging, including plastic cutlery, straws, dishes and replace them with biodegradable, produced from some grains and vegetables.

Recently, the European Parliament voted for legal norms, with which this type of plastic packaging and plastic cutlery, straws and dishes will be withdrawn from 2021. This is one of the important activities in the directions of real implementation of sustainable pro-ecological development based on the concept of green, new economics. In addition, it is necessary to increase the efficiency of recycling and the reduction of toxic waste discharged into the environment.

For example, a cigarette butt discharged into the environment pollutes approx. 1000 liters of water. This is just an example suggesting the necessity to continue taking pro-ecological next steps. On the one hand, the role of the state and the media in the issue of pro-ecological education of the society is important. On the other hand, the industry that generates various types of waste, polluting the natural environment, the industry that produces non-degradable or non-biodegradable and toxic packaging and products that are currently not recyclable should be burdened with the costs of implementing new recycling technologies, reclamation of degraded natural environment and removal of toxic waste from this environment.

Only then will the economic pressure force the creation of new eco-innovations, the production of goods from biodegradable materials or materials that can be safely neutralized or burnt in garbage incinerators.

The electrical energy necessary to supply the aforementioned pro-ecological undertakings should come as far as possible from the development of renewable energy sources. Besides, it is necessary to develop electromobility in the automotive industry, etc. Only the synergy of these various pro-ecological undertakings will generate new categories of added value, which in the future will increase the economic efficiency of these processes.

Only this way will it be possible to implement real sustainable development based on the concept of a green, new economy.

In view of the above, I would like to ask you: What are the key determinants of the implementation of sustainable pro-ecological development according to the concept of green economy?

Please, answer, comments. I invite you to the discussion

The above question inspired me to the following considerations:

What are the main directions of the development of electromobility of the automotive industry?

Will the technologies of electric motors and the new generation of batteries installed in cars and other motor vehicles be developed in the scope of the main directions of development of electromobility of the automotive industry? Will the technology of hydrogen engines or other types of engines be developed as part of the development of eco-motorisation? At present, in the majority of countries, there is no financial resources for financing high-budget pro-ecological projects from public finance funds? Should new, new ecological innovations, new technological solutions in the field of renewable energy sources, new ecoelectrodes producing electricity for the needs of electromobility in the automotive industry, new generations of batteries, photovoltaic panels, energy storage and transmission stations, hydrogen and other engines, etc. be created that the production and use of electricity generated from renewable energy sources becomes profitable, that it becomes a profitable business, that electromobility will become more and more profitable, profitable, and the prices of electric cars drop significantly? If this process lasts for a long time, there may be a shortage of time to implement the necessary reforms aimed at disseminating in the global economy a model of sustainable pro-ecological development based on the concept of green economy. If this process lasts much longer than by 2030, there may not be enough time to carry out the necessary reforms to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and, consequently, the planet's warming process will accelerate considerably, this process will be irreversible and will continue to accelerate and towards the end of the 21st century century will lead to a global climate disaster that threatens the life of all humanity and most other forms of life on Earth.

In view of the above, the current question is: What are the main directions of the development of electromobility of the automotive industry?

Please, answer, comments. I invite you to the discussion.

That an innovative ecological technologies will enable the achievement of the sustainable development of global economy?

The above question is still and probably will be valid for a long time.

Dear Colleagues and Friends from RG,

If anyone of you is interested in this subject or conducts research in the field of the above issues, I invite you to the discussion.

What is the relationship between global warming and the need to implement sustainable pro-ecological development into the global economy?

Sustainable pro-ecological development based on the concept of a new, green economy should be developed in the global economy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce the negative effects of global warming.

I describe this issue in more detail in my following considerations, based on research that I am conducting on this subject.

In view of the above, the current question is: What is the relationship between global warming and the need to implement sustainable pro-ecological development into the global economy?

Please, answer, comments. I invite you to the discussion.

The results are positive but not in the long run.

In my opinion, an important question for humanity in the context of the development of human civilization in the 21st century:

Should humanity strive to achieve full sustainable socio-economic pro-ecological economic development in the 21st century?

I answer this question in the affirmative that YES, humanity should strive to achieve full sustainable socio-economic pro-ecological economic development in the 21st century, because less time has been spent on introducing necessary pro-ecological reforms in industry, energy, material innovations, recycling etc. is one of the most important challenges of humanity in the 21st century.

And what is your opinion on this matter?

Do you agree with me?

Please answer

Best wishes

Yes, I agree with you, especially in the context of the limited resources of the Earth and the accelerated growth of people in need. The reason why a green economy-based economy combining economic, social, environmental, and last but not least, innovation can directly contribute to sustainable development that seems to have recently reached the "green" , green energy, green financing, etc.). More and I think this is the great challenge today of mankind. All the best,

Humanity should strive to include social and ecological economic development in today's sustainable development in the 21st century, not limiting technological progress as a result of competitive technological and innovative development.

All the best,

The above discussion inspired me to the following considerations:

In my opinion, an important question for humanity in the context of the development of human civilization in the 21st century:

Should humanity strive to achieve full sustainable socio-economic pro-ecological economic development in the 21st century?

I answer this question in the affirmative that YES, humanity should strive to achieve full sustainable socio-economic pro-ecological economic development in the 21st century, because less time has been spent on introducing necessary pro-ecological reforms in industry, energy, material innovations, recycling etc. is one of the most important challenges of humanity in the 21st century.

And what is your opinion on this matter?

Do you agree with me?

Please answer

Best wishes

Some researchers of this problem ask the following question: Is full sustainable socio-economic ecological development in the 21st century possible?

Currently, ecological innovations are being developed in many countries, and renewable energy sources are being developed. For max. decades of traditional energy sources based on minerals will be exhausted. Agricultural arable areas are also likely to shrink. Economics will force an increase in the use of secondary raw materials and reductions in more and more expensive emissions of harmful waste. So in the new pro-ecological economy synergies of pro-ecological different activities will be realized. This synergy may perhaps generate the necessary added value. this added value may, at least partly, help to realize the beautiful ideas of sustainable socio-economic development. Will this happen now? But everything should be done to make it possible, if it ever was possible.

Even if it were to prove in the future that Sustainable socio-economic development is not possible, in the 21st century it is necessary to try to do everything to make it possible to approach it as closely as possible. However, everything possible should be done to achieve sustainable socio-economic development. In the context of this issue, the following question arises: Whether as part of taking up actions that could develop new sustainable development, or whether bottom-up social movements will inspire politicians to undertake pro-ecological initiatives in the future. At the moment, international conferences are held, during which debates on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and accelerating the processes of generating eco-innovations and implementing renewable energy sources on a larger scale. Perhaps there should be even more such discussions, perhaps the pressure from scientists should be greater for politicians, while it is not too late yet? Unless it is too late? But it probably does not make sense to accept, to think that it is too late, but you have to do what you can in the future, in part, be able to implement sustainable socio-economic development. Will humanity survive until the XXII century in comparable living conditions to those present? It is not known, but everything possible must be done to ensure that these conditions are not significantly worsened in terms of the protection of the natural environment and the progressing greenhouse effect on Earth.

In view of the above, I would like to ask you: Should humanity strive to achieve full sustainable socio-economic pro-ecological economic development in the 21st century?

I answer this question in the affirmative that YES, humanity should strive to achieve full sustainable socio-economic pro-ecological economic development in the 21st century, because less time has been spent on introducing necessary pro-ecological reforms in industry, energy, material innovations, recycling etc. is one of the most important challenges of humanity in the 21st century.

And what is your opinion on this matter?

Do you agree with me?

Please, answer, comments. I invite you to the discussion.

Best wishes

Dear Prof:

I need sometime to find out more information and I will come back for discussion.

Siribuppa

Following

"Should humanity strive to achieve full sustainable socio-economic pro-ecological economic development in the 21st century"?

It would be really nice to have a social-ecologic-economic theory that could be shown to be viable for the next few hundred years.  Do you have one?  If not, then this would be the goal to achieve first, and then implement it.  Otherwise, people like Ales will rightfully point out that an undefined problem statement means anything you want it to.

I don't think my papers get us there (need proof about the calculation of effectiveness), but I think they point in the right direction.

Due to the current civilization progress in recent decades, acceleration of the development of industry, automotive, urban agglomerations, intensification of agricultural production, etc. and related greenhouse gas emissions, global warming, ozone layer depletion in the atmosphere, increase of environmental pollution, growing problem of smog in urban agglomerations, the increase in pollution of the seas and oceans to which unsorted waste is thrown away is cut out as part of the predatory economy of tropical forests in the Amazon and other largest natural forest ecosystems.

In addition, the secondary effect of global warming of the Earth's climate is the increasing, more frequent weather anomalies, including drought, leading to steppe and desertification of areas that were previously natural forest ecosystems or areas exploited by agriculture.

As a result of the above-mentioned processes, every year many species of flora and fauna disappear forever.

As a result, natural biodiversity diminishes, which for millions of years evolved evolutionally on Earth.

In this way the natural resources of the planet Earth are irretrievably in decline.

In view of the above, the issue of environmental protection and biodiversity is one of the most important challenges of humanity in the 21st century.

Classical economics must change towards a green economy based on the strategy of sustainable pro-ecological development.

Therefore, I am asking you for the following query:

How can environmental protection and biodiversity be improved by using current ecological technologies?

Please, answer, comments.

I invite you to the discussion.

Best wishes

It might be one of possible reasons that environmental protection and biodiversity can be improved by providing high incentives and motivation to be green culture / green organizational culture.

How? ( is very important for effective and reliable measurement). It is going back to ask for knowledge and moral-based society as main foundation and ingredient for possible improvement of current ecological technologies.

Article Global Warming Mitigation Through Carbon Sequestrations in t...

Dear Friends and Colleagues of RG

The above discussion inspired me to the following considerations:

In the 21st century, will a man in the development of civilization manage to achieve a fully sustainable ecological economy based on the concept of green economy before the global climate catastrophe?

The ever-faster greenhouse effect on Earth has already been recognized by many research centers as fact. If the global warming process is not stopped by introducing environmentally-friendly economic policy reforms, the development of ecological and innovative technologies, primarily in the field of renewable energy, electromobility, waste segregation, recycling, etc. Earth at the end of the 21st century is threatened by global climate disaster related to global warming and rising frequency and scale of emerging weather anomalies and climatic cataclysms.

In view of the above, I am asking you the following question:

In the 21st century, will a man in the development of civilization manage to achieve a fully sustainable ecological economy based on the concept of green economy before the global climate catastrophe?

Please reply

I invite you to the discussion

Best wishes

I suggest the following questions and research problems in the above topic:

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, 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?

Please, answer, comments.

I invite you to the discussion

Thank you very much

Best wishes

Dear Friends and Colleagues of RG

In the context of the progressive warming of the Earth's climate, the following question is of particular importance:

How will the technique of building infrastructure of cities and metropolises change due to the ongoing global warming process?

Does the development of smart city technology and ecological innovations, renewable energy sources, etc., ie the dissemination of sustainable pro-ecological development of cities and metropolises, facilitate the process of settling new environments in connection with the ongoing global warming process?

What kind of new environments did the people experience when fleeing from the drained continents? Probably if the end of the twenty-first century due to the progressive procesm global warming average temperature of the Earth's surface to increase by 3-4 degrees Celsius to most areas in tropical, subtropical and temperate some of the areas will not be suitable for survival. People will have to emigrate to the arctic regions.

In addition, technologies for colonizing new environments should be developed. Perhaps in a few decades new cities will be built underground, at the bottom of the seas and oceans, in Earth's orbit and possibly also on the Moon and on Mars if humanity in the next several decades will properly modernize the space travel technique and colonize the possible planets in our System sunlight.

Do you agree with my opinion on this matter?

In view of the above, I am asking you the following question:

How will human civilization change in a few decades due to the ongoing global warming process?

Please reply

I invite you to the discussion

Best wishes

In the context of the progressive warming of the Earth's climate, the following question is of particular importance:

How can environmental protection and biodiversity be improved by using current ecological technologies?

Due to the current civilization progress in recent decades, acceleration of the development of industry, automotive, urban agglomerations, intensification of agricultural production, etc. and related greenhouse gas emissions, global warming, ozone layer depletion in the atmosphere, increase of environmental pollution, growing problem of smog in urban agglomerations, the increase in pollution of the seas and oceans to which unsorted waste is thrown away is cut out as part of the predatory economy of tropical forests in the Amazon and other largest natural forest ecosystems.

In addition, the secondary effect of global warming of the Earth's climate is the increasing, more frequent weather anomalies, including drought, leading to steppe and desertification of areas that were previously natural forest ecosystems or areas exploited by agriculture.

As a result of the above-mentioned processes, every year many species of flora and fauna disappear forever.

As a result, natural biodiversity diminishes, which for millions of years evolved evolutionally on Earth.

In this way the natural resources of the planet Earth are irretrievably in decline.

In view of the above, the issue of environmental protection and biodiversity is one of the most important challenges of humanity in the 21st century.

Classical economics must change towards a green economy based on the strategy of sustainable pro-ecological development.

Therefore, I am asking you for the following query:

How can environmental protection and biodiversity be improved by using current ecological technologies?

Please, answer, comments.

I invite you to the discussion.

Best wishes

The above question inspired me to the following considerations:

How to activate the development of ecological innovations and pro-ecological reforms in economic processes?

Ecological innovations should contribute to accelerating the process of a global change in the strategy of civilization development towards sustainable ecological and socio-economic development. In the context of increasing greenhouse gas emissions, the ongoing global warming process, growing environmental pollution and the devastation of many environments and natural ecosystems, it is necessary to stimulate the development of eco-innovation and pro-ecological reforms in economic processes to implement sustainable economic and environmental friendly socio-economic development based on green economy concept.

Yes, it is necessary to change the development strategy based on intensifying the exploitation of the Earth's resources on the sustainable development strategy. It is necessary to develop new energy technologies based on renewable energy sources to slow down the progressing greenhouse effect of the Earth in order to reduce the risk of dramatic natural cataclysms. It is necessary to develop ecological innovations, while it may not be too late. It is necessary to save the Earth by extinction for future generations.

The 21st century is the last moment to introduce global sustainable development based on the development of renewable energy and ecological innovations. Sustainable development should be analyzed and measured in correlation with the analysis of economic growth and the share of individual sectors in the country's economic development, including the transformation of traditional energy sources into renewable energy, environmental reclamation and recovery of recyclable materials, and ecological innovations.

Do you agree with my opinion on this matter?

In view of the above, I am asking you the following question:

How to activate the development of ecological innovations and pro-ecological reforms in economic processes?

Please reply

I invite you to the discussion

Thank you very much

Best wishes

Therefore, in the context of the above considerations, the following important question appears:

How to increase the effectiveness of environmental protection programs, natural ecosystems and biodiversity?

Protection of the environment, natural ecosystems and biodiversity should be an integral part of the concept of sustainable pro-ecological economic development?

In the context of growing and increasing environmental pollution and declining areas of natural ecosystems, the importance and need to improve environmental protection systems, natural ecosystems and biodiversity is increasing. Biodiversity is one of the most important issues of natural ecosystems and life on Earth. Maintaining high biodiversity on Earth should be a challenge and one of the main goals of human functioning on the Earth in the 21st century and in subsequent centuries.

In connection with the above, protection of the environment, natural ecosystems and biodiversity should be an integral part of the concept of sustainable ecological development. In some countries, the concept of sustainable pro-ecological economic development is implemented successively, primarily in the field of renewable energy sources, improvement of waste segregation techniques and recycling development. However, in many countries these issues are still insufficiently developed.

Still too small financial resources are allocated in many countries for the development of renewable energy sources, improvement of waste segregation and recycling techniques. In addition to the private sector, besides enterprises implementing ecological innovations, it is necessary to increase expenditures and develop strategic pro-ecological reform projects, including restructuring of the mining industry of minerals supplying classic energy sources and development of energy based on renewable energy sources. This development should be supported and coordinated by environmentally friendly state intervention, and due to the high investment costs of construction of power plants producing electricity from renewable energy sources should be co-financed from the state public finance funds.

In this way, it will be possible to slow down the ongoing global warming process in the 21st century and thus slow down the process of devastating the natural environment, draining green areas characterized by high biodiversity. Biodiversity is a very important issue in the context of the analysis of ecology, sustainable development and the protection of the natural environment, including, in particular, the natural positions of biologically complex ecosystems, i.e. those that are characterized by high biodiversity. Maintaining biodiversity of natural ecosystems is one of the most important problems and tasks for people in the 21st century.

Do you agree with my opinion on this matter?

In the context of the above considerations, the following question is still valid:

How to increase the effectiveness of environmental protection programs, natural ecosystems and biodiversity?

Please reply

I invite you to the discussion

Thank you very much

Best wishes

In addition, I note the interesting discussion inspired me to the following considerations:

To what extent does the development of eco-innovation and renewable energy improve the protection of the environment, natural biological ecosystems and biodiversity?

In my opinion, the development of innovative ecological technologies and eco-innovations as well as renewable energy sources and their implementation into economic processes is a growing important factor of sustainable green economic development based on the green economy concept.

In a situation where pro-ecological innovations are developed, including energy-related innovations, including new technologies of renewable energy sources, then pro-development anti-crisis, Keynesian socio-economic policy obtains additional attributes of modernity taking into account the protection of natural resources of the environment, protection of natural biological ecosystems and biodiversity.

In this situation, the classic pro-development anti-crisis, Keynesian social and economic policy is transformed into an ecological socio-economic policy implemented into the economy as part of the promotion of sustainable proecological socio-economic development taking into account the new green economy principles, including care for the protection of natural environmental resources, protection natural biological ecosystems and biodiversity.

Do you agree with my opinion on this matter?

In view of the above, I am asking you the following question:

To what extent does the development of eco-innovation and renewable energy improve the protection of the environment, natural biological ecosystems and biodiversity?

Please reply

I invite you to discussion and scientific cooperation

Thank you very much

Best wishes

In view of the above, it is also important to include in the above discussion also the following issue:

Will ecological innovations help in the implementation of sustainable pro-ecological economic development?

Will ecological innovations help in speeding up the process of a globally changing civilization development strategy towards sustainable ecological and social development?

Yes, it is necessary to change the development strategy based on intensifying the exploitation of the Earth's resources on the sustainable development strategy. It is necessary to develop new energy technologies based on renewable energy sources to slow down the progressing greenhouse effect of the Earth in order to reduce the risk of dramatic natural cataclysms. It is necessary to develop ecological innovations, while it may not be too late. It is necessary to save the Earth by extinction for future generations.

The 21st century is the last moment to introduce global sustainable development based on the development of renewable energy and ecological innovations. Sustainable development should be analyzed and measured in correlation with the analysis of economic growth and the share of individual sectors in the country's economic development, including the transformation of traditional energy sources into renewable energy, environmental reclamation and recovery of recyclable materials, and ecological innovations.

Do you agree with my opinion on this matter?

In view of the above, I am asking you the following question:

Will ecological innovations help in speeding up the process of a globally changing civilization development strategy towards sustainable ecological and social development?

Please reply

I invite you to the discussion

Thank you very much for your response and participation in the discussion

Best wishes

In the context of the above considerations, the following question is also current:

What is the significance of innovative technologies in shaping pro-development, anti-crisis, counter-cyclical, Keynesian, pro-ecological socio-economic policy?

What instruments of state intervention are applied in your country as part of pro-development, anti-crisis, counter-cyclical, Keynesian, pro-ecological socio-economic policy and pro-social housing policy?

In some developing countries, pro-development, anti-crisis, countercyclical, Keynesian socio-economic policies and pro-social housing policies are currently underway, which are a significant determinant of high economic growth and provide citizens with material and economic well-being. In individual countries, analogical instruments of state intervention are usually used as part of pro-development, anti-crisis, counter-cyclical, Keynesian socio-economic policy and pro-social housing policy.

The applied state intervention instruments also contribute to the activation of innovation and entrepreneurship, reduction of unemployment, investment growth, income and consumption. In individual countries, analogical instruments of state intervention are usually used, including selected instruments of fiscal, budgetary and monetary policy, however, in a different structure of the use of individual instruments and a different share of their financing from the public finances of the state.

In my opinion, the development of innovative technologies and their implementation into the production processes of both consumer and investment products, e.g. construction prefabricates and ecological materials, energy innovations is a growing factor of pro-development, anti-crisis, countercyclical, Keynesian socio-economic policy, including pro-social development. housing policy?

In a situation where pro-ecologic innovations are also developed, including the new ones, including new technologies of renewable energy sources, then pro-development anti-crisis, Keynesian socio-economic policy acquires additional attributes of modernity taking into account the protection of natural resources of the environment.

In this situation, the classic pro-development anti-crisis, Keynesian social and economic policy is transformed into an ecological socio-economic policy implemented into the economy as part of the promotion of sustainable pro-ecological socio-economic development taking into account the new green economy principles.

Do you agree with my opinion on this matter?

In view of the above, I am asking you the following question:

What is the importance of innovative technologies in shaping pro-development, anti-crisis, counter-cyclical, Keynesian, pro-ecological socio-economic policy?

Please reply

I invite you to discussion and scientific cooperation

Thank you very much for your response and participation in the discussion

Dear Friends and Colleagues of RG

The issues of specific programs to improve the economic, financial, material and housing situation of households as key instruments of pro-development state intervention and significant components of the socio-economic policy of the state I described in the publications:

Article FAMILY 500 PLUS PROGRAMS AND FLAT PLUS WITH KEY INSTRUMENTS ...

Article Ability to Generate Financial Savings by Households in Poland

Article ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL SITUATION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN POLAND – A...

I invite you to discussion and cooperation.

Best wishes

Therefore, in the context of the above considerations, the following important question appears:

Should the state co-finance the development of renewable energy sources or only the private sector?

A significant part of the pro-ecological reforms as part of the transformation of the energy sector and the development of renewable energy sources is carried out by private companies.

However, these are usually undertakings not resulting from market processes only from changing legal norms established by the state administration.

In addition, the construction of large nuclear power plants, water plants and the type of large wind and solar farms absorbs huge financial resources with predicted relatively low profitability.

Therefore, private enterprises are not interested in investing in the development of large power plants that produce electricity under renewable energy sources if the state does not provide financial support under financial guarantees and a share in investment costs.

The development of electromobility in the automotive industry in some countries is also supported by the state to a large extent.

In some countries, the state from the budget funds of the central public finance system refinances a significant part of the costs of purchasing an electric car and finances the development of the necessary infrastructure of electric vehicle charging points deployed on the streets and arteries.

Therefore, the development of renewable energy sources, ie the key element of the pro-ecological transformation of the energy sector, should be coordinated organisationally and financially supported by the state.

In the context of increasing emissions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere and the ever-faster global warming process, the pro-ecological transformation of the energy sector should be carried out as soon as possible.

It is not possible to implement proecological reforms in the energy sector and implement ecological innovations in other sectors of industry as well as wait for the resources of energy (hard coal, lignite, oil, natural gas) to run out.

This process can not be left solely to the market mechanism within the framework of classical or neoclassical economics.

In order for an environmentally-friendly transformation of the energy sector to be effected efficiently and as soon as possible, a significant share of financial support from the state is indispensable.

Do you agree with my opinion on this matter?

In view of the above, I am asking you the following question:

Should the state co-finance the development of renewable energy sources or only the private sector?

Please reply

I invite you to the discussion

Thank you very much

Best wishes

In the context of the progressive warming of the Earth's climate, the following question is of particular importance:

Has the classic economy lost its relevance for the energy market?

Has the classic economy lost its relevance to the energy market and therefore whether the process of necessary proecological reforms in the energy sector involving the replacement of energy sources, ie classic energy sources based on burning minerals for renewable energy sources should be coordinated by the state as a pro-environmental interventionist anti-crisis state?

Still at the end of the 21th century, in many publications written in the convention of classical economics, theses were formulated that energy should be shaped by the mechanism of market-harmonizing sides of demand and supply. However, this philosophy concerned classic energy based on the combustion of minerals. Mineral energy deposits in certain parts of the world are determined for several decades of extraction.

If the development of mining technology allows to reach and extract energy from deeper deposits than currently exploited and decks located under the sea and ocean bottoms, such estimated deposits would allow mining of these deposits in some places of the world for much longer than 100 years. However, humanity can not wait so much for pro-ecological reforms in the energy sector and the slow process of switching to renewable energy sources, which is happening in some countries, including the largest economies in the world, the largest emitters of greenhouse gases.

Currently, the philosophy of the energy sector is starting to change. Now the obvious issue is the need to quickly implement pro-ecological reforms without contemplating the depleted energy resources of the Earth's crust. This wait could take about 100 years or more than 100 years in many countries and this is too long, because at the end of the 21st century, according to climate change analysis, drastic climatic catastrophes will occur due to the predicted acceleration of the global warming process in the following decades.

According to the published and presented results of climatologists' research during the recent UN Climate Summits and Conferences on the problem of progressing global warming process, unless by 2030 at the latest the world will not show the classic energy based on the burning of minerals for renewable energy sources and motorization for electromobility and there will be no appropriate improvement of segregation waste and recycling, by the end of the 21st century, the average temperature at the Earth's surface will increase by 3-4 degrees Celsius globally, and the scale of climate cataclysms and weather anomalies will increase many times in relation to the current state.

In view of the above, the world can no longer wait for the depletion of energy minerals. This issue, which is particularly important for humanity and life on Earth, can not be left to the market mechanism and classical economy, whose philosophy has long been undermined, already in the period of the Great Depression of 1929-1934 it was demonstrated that Keynsovian state interventionism is needed to bring the economy out of the deep economic crisis if the liberalized private sector led to a crisis and the economy quickly does not return itself to balance and high economic growth on the basis of self-acting market mechanisms.

We currently have a similar situation. The world inevitably aims at increasing climatic cataclysms caused by the accelerating global warming process. These unfavorable processes for humanity and life on Earth will become a source of intensification of migration of people from subtropical areas, on which it will be impossible to live and live in a few dozen years due to high temperatures and droughts. In addition, there will be economic crises resulting from the global warming process. Humanity has no time to put off the necessary pro-ecological reforms for the future, these pro-ecological reforms in the energy sector need to be implemented now and it should be a process coordinated by the state in the context of pro-environmental anti-crisis state interference.

Do you agree with my opinion on this matter?

In view of the above, I am asking you the following question:

Has the classic economy lost its relevance to the energy market and therefore whether the process of necessary proecological reforms in the energy sector involving the replacement of energy sources, ie classic energy sources based on burning minerals for renewable energy sources should be coordinated by the state as a pro-environmental interventionist anti-crisis state?

Please reply

I invite you to the discussion

Thank you very much

Best wishes

The above discussion inspired me to the following considerations:

How can you speed up the processes of changing the classic economy in green economy?

How can you speed up the processes of changing the classical economy in green economy shaped according to the principles of sustainable pro-ecological economic development?

From time to time, conferences and climates summit are held in various countries around the world. In principle, everyone agrees on the importance of implementing the necessary pro-ecological reforms in economic processes. In addition to representatives of mining companies of energy resources for the traditional energy of burning mineral and traditional power plants, everyone agrees that in order to slow down the global warming processes that are unfavorable for the natural environment, it is necessary to implement pro-ecological reforms as soon as possible. above all, to develop renewable energy sources on a larger scale. In addition, pro-ecological innovations on an industrial scale should be implemented as soon as possible.

Recently, this type of climatic summit took place in Katowice in Poland. It was the UN climate summit, the so-called COP (Conference of the Parties) on climate policy on Earth. UN climate summits, i.e. COP (Conference of the Parties) are global conferences during which climate policy is negotiated. Poland twice hosted them - in 2008 in Poznań and in 2013 in Warsaw. In December 2018, the climate summit is held for the first time now in Katowice in Poland. During this summit, conferences were held, discussions on the need to develop a sustainable development policy and the need for ecological development, renewable energy sources to generate a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the future, and ultimately to limit the average annual temperature on the Earth's surface.

From the discussions it follows that it is necessary to develop ecological innovations, new pro-ecological energy sources, and to develop the electromobility of transport means. It is necessary to develop and implement on a large scale renewable energy sources. In addition, it is important to increase the scale of afforestation, as forests and the flora contained in them absorb a large proportion of greenhouse gas emissions.

As part of the UN climate summit of December 2018, the following were held: the 24th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP24), 14th Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP 14) and the Conference of the Paris Agreement signatories (CMA 1). About 20,000 people from 190 countries took part in the event, including politicians, representatives of non-governmental organizations, and scientific and business spheres.

The lecture delivered during the climatic summit shows that in recent years the warming of the Earth's climate has accelerated significantly and therefore, in the black scenario of future climate changes, the temperature on the Earth's surface can rise by 4 ° C to the end of the 21st century. If this happened, then the scale of climate-related cataclysms that are dangerous to human beings will increase many times, including droughts, floods, fires and weather anomalies in many places around the world. The problem is very serious globally and therefore a lot depends on whether international cooperation will develop in order to limit these problems and their negative effects.

In view of the above, it is necessary to change the development strategy based on intensifying the exploitation of the Earth's resources on the sustainable development strategy. It is necessary to develop new energy technologies based on renewable energy sources to slow down the progressing greenhouse effect of the Earth in order to reduce the risk of dramatic natural cataclysms. It is necessary to develop ecological innovations, while it may not be too late. It is necessary to save the Earth from destruction for future generations.

The 21st century is the last moment to introduce global sustainable development based on the development of renewable energy and ecological innovations. Sustainable development should be analyzed and measured in correlation with the analysis of economic growth and the share of individual sectors in the country's economic development, including the transformation of traditional energy sources into renewable energy, environmental reclamation and recovery of recyclable materials, and ecological innovations.

Unfortunately, perhaps the only major positive effect of these conferences and climate summits is the promotion of the need to apply these pro-ecological reforms in the media. However, the scale of real actions in this direction, the scale of expenditure growth supported by subsidies from state budgets for the development of energy based on renewable energy sources, the development of electromobility, improvement of sorting and recycling processes is still small in relation to the needs.

Do you agree with my opinion on this matter?

In view of the above, I am asking you the following question:

How can you speed up the processes of changing the classical economy in green economy shaped according to the principles of sustainable pro-ecological economic development?

Please reply

I invite you to the discussion

Thank you very much for your response and participation in the discussion

Best wishes