Rapid growth in poor developing countries is commonplace because early technological advances are easier to achieve.

It's like looking at the growth rates of infants over teenagers. If a baby continued to grow for 20 years at the same rate he grew during the first two years of his life, all 20 year old people would be 17 feet tall and weigh 900 pounds. But growth slows.

When people living in grass huts and using stone tools are first given advanced seeds, fertilizers, and simple machinery their economic output can increase a-thousandfold. But this steep increase is tempered as they move closer to the tools and standards of modern society.

on my view, specially in devolopping country, it depends on the level of involvement and collective conscience of politic and economic decision-makers.

In fact, green economy seems to be an alternative way to the sustainable pro-ecological economic development . A non classic way to insure the growth of one's country without wasting.

Green economy is the sustainable future.

The economic contra-polarity is between job creation (income) vs. environmental protection (externalities); it is a matter of setting political priorities. I would put priority on income policy, but closely watch the involved externalities. A good example is the tourism industry, which creates short-term income opportunities, but involves long-term externalities (deep ecological footprint).

Economic growth is a poor measure of advancement of humanity or the survival of a country. Consider the US vs Japan in the last half of 20th century and US vs China today. The development of new technologies is very expensive, for the research and experimentation. The US paid for this. But Japan and Chine copied and therefore, didn't have to pay the research costs. The Japan hit the wall in the 1990s. They needed new technology that had not been previously developed. China has yet to hit that wall. So called green efforts are missing the point. Green for green's sake is wasteful. Green has to have a purpose that advances humanity. Global warming may soon turn to global cooling as nature has done for many millions of years. ALL the global warming developments will be useless and counterproductive.

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

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

Dear Friends and Colleagues of RG,

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

What are the correlations between the rate of economic growth and the possibilities of implementing sustainable economic pro-ecological development into economic processes?

Paradoxically, in order to increase the possibilities of implementing sustainable environmental friendly economic development into economic processes, it is necessary at least in the initial stage of a specific business cycle to generate a high rate of economic growth. It is necessary to improve the state finances in order to achieve a budget surplus in the public finance system of the state. In this way, funds will be generated for which the state will be able to implement economic projects as part of pro-ecological reforms. The implementation of these reforms, for example through the development of energy based on renewable energy sources, will enable the implementation of sustainable pro-ecological economic development to economic processes.

However, after the implemented pro-ecological reforms, the development of applications of eco-innovations and the dissemination of the concept of sustainable pro-ecological economic development developed according to the green economy in subsequent years, economic growth may successively be reduced as an objective process. Similarly, subsequent business cycles should flatten, the amplitude of fluctuations in the pace of growth and the decline in economic development should decrease and national economies should develop in a more stable manner.

Do you agree with me on the above matter?

In the context of the above issues, I am asking you the following question: What are the correlations between the rate of economic growth and the possibilities of implementing sustainable economic pro-ecological development into economic processes?

Please reply

I invite you to the discussion

Thank you very much

Best wishes

Rapid growth in poor developing countries is commonplace because early technological advances are easier to achieve.

It's like looking at the growth rates of infants over teenagers. If a baby continued to grow for 20 years at the same rate he grew during the first two years of his life, all 20 year old people would be 17 feet tall and weigh 900 pounds. But growth slows.

When people living in grass huts and using stone tools are first given advanced seeds, fertilizers, and simple machinery their economic output can increase a-thousandfold. But this steep increase is tempered as they move closer to the tools and standards of modern society.