Just think about it , we do not yet have set up green markets, and therefore we have failed to meet the 2012 UNCSD goal at Rio plus 20 so far, that of shifting to green markets and the green economies.
And that may explain why everywhere you look, you see now either carbon pricing or cap and trade thinking is taking hold as the best way to address environmental issues, not green markets.
And that means as far as I know that for the first time since Adam Smith we are now not just calling for, but praising government intervention.
As you know or should know, carbon pricing or cap and trade markets are not free markets.
And this raises the question, was the Rio plus 20 called to shift to green markets a call for government intervention?
I do not think so, what do you think?
It seems to me that some elements of the answer to your question can be found in "Economics of the common goods" by Jean Tirole (Nobel Prize winner)
Dear Jean, the question given the context has a yes or no and why answer structure so those interested in the topic can express their views with supporting arguments or contra arguments. And these may allow for a positive exchange of ideas with those who take the time to write and me.
I think that the 2012 UNCSD rio plus 20 did not intend to advocate for permanent government intervention to solve environmental issues, but it has ended up that way
If you have your own views why the 2012 shift to green markets, green economies and green growth had ended up by 2019 with dwarf green markets, dwarf green economies, and dwarf green growth, which means a move from expected perfect/free market thinking to the unexpected imperfect/non-free market thinking, please take the time to share it.
Thank you for taking the time to write
Respectfully yours;
Good day Usama, thank you for taking the time to comment.
Markets shift from perfect market to perfect market when corrected so the 2012 Rio plus 20 marked a shift from perfect traditional market thinking to perfect green market thinking to move towards green economies and green growth after correcting it to reflect the environmental costs of doing business....These are free markets so no government intervention is needed if they are set up well and therefore they are working out well. So the UNCSD at rio plus 20 was not calling for goverment intervention, it was calling for governments to shift their structures from traditional economies to green economies, both free market economies.
If there is permanent government intervention, there are no free markets....so permanent government intervention to achieve environmental goals means NO FREE GREEN MARKETS, but what I call "dwarf green markets".
If government intervention is necessary, especially permanently, means the markets are not properly set up....
I appreciate your comment
Majority of the marketing structure in India is unorganized sector. Traditonal market is not diverting to Green market till 2019. So far as concern the government has made rules and regualtions and also passed the Acts to suppor the green marketing in India. But there is lack of awareness among the perople to use the green product and manufacturers also not interested to produce and market their product as a green product.
Dear Sanjay, thank you for your comment. There is a difference between regulations and incentives to shift to green markets and direct government intervention to achieve environmental goals.
The brundtland commission in 1987 called for the fixing of the free traditional market model, not the tweaking of it.
The 2012 Rio plus 20 chose to shift to green markets and green economies, which means it chose to fix it by internalizing the environmental cost of doing business in the free market model it left behind.
Therefore, governments were supposed to move quickly with regulations and incentives aimed at internalizing the environmental cost of doing business in the old traditional market model to shift it to green markets, green producers, green consumers, green growth and green economies.
This requires government regulation and incentive for environmental cost internalization to promote a new higher level, a more responsible market, the green market.
Instead, the world has been moving since 2012 towards permanent government intervention approaches e.g. carbon pricing, approach inconsistent with perfect green market theory.
Have a nice day
Respectfully yours;
Sharing article just published here:
The Flipping of Traditional Economic Thinking: Contrasting the Working of Dwarf Green Market Thinking with that of Green Market Thinking to Highlight Main Differences and Implications
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334535200_The_Flipping_of_Traditional_Economic_Thinking_Contrasting_the_Working_of_Dwarf_Green_Market_Thinking_with_that_of_Green_Market_Thinking_to_Highlight_Main_Differences_and_Implications
- Badges
- Science topic