Unfortunately, it is impossible

Best Regards Dariusz Prokopowicz

Sustainability involves not only the ecological (environmental) and economic spheres but also the social one. Life-Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) is a framework through which one could examine the sustainable potentials of a product, service or decision in various spans of time. Nevertheless, it's difficult and sometimes inaccurate mainly because of lack of observations and accurate input data. Moreover, it requires complex qualitative and quantitative methods.

There must be a harmony between the economy, society and environment. Otherwise we as human beings and our civilization will not survive or sustain. There's no other way around.

With a booming population, and increasing consumerism and urbanising rate, we cannot have a linear viewpoint on Sustainable Development. Moreover, where countries will look to tap into consumer markets to sustain economic growth. Developing countries will face difficulty as they will lack the financial capacity to invest in expensive infrastructures; even more if those infrastructures as made sustainable. So how can be really promote sustainable development in countries that will face it the most with traditionally unsustainable financing mechanisms; such as the debt trap diplomacy?

We need to expand the issue and look at how to further tap into economy while encouraging sustainability. This is key.

I strongely agree with both Aryan and Zaheer

Hi all,

The economy and ecology are currently seems to be right and left concept. The economists try to achieve the sustainability through economical development and ecologists feels like they can achieve the sustainability through ecological concept individually. In this 21st century, the criterion of development is fully centered on economy which is responsible for lost of humanity and indirectly it leads us to destroy our ecological resources. In this modern era our new generation are learned how money and luxury are important for them. If we start to teach our new generations how ecological resources are equally important as economy are than we can achieve the goal we talking about. Both right and left mind needs to work together and both has to be compromised if we want to achieve the so called sustainable development.

If we see the relation between economical development and ecological disturbance than than it is clear how ecological resources were utilized by the current developed countries to achieve the economical development and how that influenced the current ecological balance. Currently, undeveloped and developing countries are also try to achieve the same economical development status without caring of the environment/ecology. Because of that we are facing huge and intensive climate change. To overcome this problem we need to transfer the sustainable technologies and knowledge to those undeveloped and developing countries to achieve their basic needs without destroying their ecological balance which directly or indirectly help to maintain the ecological balance of whole world.

It is the right time act locally and thinks globally. A single theoretical or practical concept can never be work for whole world. If we start making strategies that can be implemented locally than of course we may achieve the sustainability globally.

It never has been in the past, but unless there is a massive paradigm shift to make it happen in the future, the outlook for the planet is not brilliant. I view the economy as a measure of how much the ecological environment is being stressed. To see why, just consider what happens if the energy flow that supports the economy is removed. Nature will once again 'take over' - but it isn't really a take over, it's more a return to a state of maximum complexity that the introduction of the industrial economy has totally subverted.

Your question underlines the problem. You have to be very careful when you try to peel apart economy, ecology, and society and still talk about sustainability. It's very much like talking about placing all of the heads and tails of a handful of coins in different buckets. It only has meaning if you put them all together.

If you are going to tease them apart for some kind of discussion purpose, it has to be done so in a manner that starts with Sustainable Development, and then focuses on how that would manifest in a primarily economic, or ecological, or social sphere.

I start with 'Sustainable Development is an increase in quality of life of a community between two points of time, using the resources and ecological services available from the land-mass being managed by the community, and the skills of the population living in the community, in perpetuity', and I add a clause that resilience must increase with development. Then I can come to:

Sustainable Ecological Development would be an increase in the quality of life of a community between two points of time by restoring or enhancing the ecosystem services that provide resources and absorb waste from the biomes being managed, while ensuring that a non-declining portion of each biome is maintained as a ‘wilderness’ that is neither a sink for wastes nor a source for resources.

Sustainable Economic Development would be an increase in the quality of life between two points in time, by increasing specialization and productivity of the population, reducing the internal barriers to trade of critical resources, reducing the external barriers to co-management of critical resources, and ensuring access to sufficient wealth to offset economic disruption.

Sustainable Social Development would be an increase in the quality of life of a community between two points in time, by increasing how effectively people are able to use their time to meet their needs while ensuring that no subset of the community receives a greater burden than benefit from any development initiative.

So, now I can answer your question. Can we fully sustain economic development in harmony with ecology? If we focus on 'quality of life' and not 'standard of living', then yes. Sustainable Economic Development would happen as a side effect of Sustainable Development, but it can't happen the other way around. If you put the cart in front of the horse, you're going to have problems.

Two principal approaches to improving quality of life are Human Development (identifying and removing obstructions that prevent people from being able to meet their needs effectively) and Technological Development (enhancing the efficiency by which people use their time to convert resources into the means to meet their needs). In technologically rich communities, the low hanging fruit is Human Development. When those obstructions, be they of the self (ignorance, addiction, etc), the family (rigid gender roles, domestic violence, etc) or community (tribal fundamentalism, culture of greed, etc) are eliminated, people are able to use their time more effectively, so that more of their needs are met. Which then gives them the ability to take risks and challenges that they could not have done before, leading to economic (and social, and possibly ecological) development.

At any cost we have to make it possible to ensure our own survival.

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

The discussed issue in the above discussion is particularly important, so I invite you to continue the discussion on this topic.

Will it be possible in the future to fully sustain economic development in harmony with ecology?

Please reply. I invite you to the discussion.

Utilizing crop residues for producing paper, board, and energy; instead of just burning such residues. This improves the sustainability of agriculture and industry. It also promotes environmental sustainability by decreasing carbon dioxide emmisions resulting from burning such residues. A comprehensive disscusion is available in the below mentioned review. Happy new year.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315427845_Agricultural_Residues_Wastes_for_Manufacture_of_Paper_Board_and_Miscellaneous_Products_Background_Overview_and_Future_Prospects?_sg=dCbeMX0vonOcHzwQIICRBblrhqLEUYcIkIGIU5bi5FixAnl_7Gy7bVaiRWZYH3_UjPk2AdvFl4wUKkQltHNm36ldi9KwCNkIpNnCr6aS.EPqnMeAOOTXhKUPPdB3GCu5uDq5T75lpbZJUF74khb_yasyOanYEwWGbIJtMDp06PferlvE6rcscMQ0nxbfg6A

Hello you all. I agree with Douglas and disagree with Sandeep.

The mindset that Sandeep is talking about is a 20th century mindset. Now we have the Agenda 2030 which is a set of 17 Sustainable Development Goals which are being used by governments as a basis for planning. 193 countries signed the 2030 Agenda and 145 are already using it as a basis for planning. Governments have recently reached consensus about the implementation of the Paris Agreement even though Mr Trump and the government of a few petroleum states are trying to push the clock backwards.

Economy is not opposed to environment. There is an increasing amount of evidence that industrial processes that contaminate are processes that can be re-designed to reduce contamination and increase profit and return on investment. The circular economy came to be as a consequence of this "new knowledge". Also, we have the new field of bioeconomy which is currently being given lots of attention and funding.

Governments and production sectors have started to notice and change. Will the change come soon enough to save our world? I do not know.

I know that some rich people like Mr Trump think that they will be able to find clean closed spaces where they will be able to go on with business as usual while the rest of humanity struggles for survival. But I think that they should reconsider their views because in the near future there may be increasingly less "safe" places, and these places may not be easily accessible for them-however rich they might be.

Just in case you are wondering, I am critical of a mindset that is drawing us close to extinction. I am not criticizing the people themselves.

The above question inspired me to the following considerations:

What is the role of particular social groups in disseminating the concept of sustainable pro-ecological development based on the concept of a new, green economy?

The role of engineers is particularly important for enabling sustainable development, including sustainable pro-ecological development, based on the concept of a new, green economy. Engineers create new technological solutions, new energy technologies, ecological innovations, innovative ecological buildings, develop renewable energy sources in industry and other applications, create automation technologies for waste segregation, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, develop electromobility, carry out investment projects to reclaim a devastated natural environment, etc. Apart from engineers, the key actors are the state as an economic entity and financial institutions, ie the main actors of external financing of environment-friendly investment projects, thanks to which sustainable sustainable development based on the concept of green economy is enabled and implemented. The role of politicians who set the direction of the necessary systemic changes is also important. Also important is the role of citizens who within the civil and information society are increasingly aware of the threats to the growing risk of climatic cataclysms that are a derivative of the progressive global warming. The role of mass media and new online media is important, including social media portals, thanks to which the level of social awareness for this type of important problems, particularly important in the 21st century, important for humanity, for the whole planet Earth is growing.

In view of the above, the current question is: What is the role of particular social groups in the dissemination of sustainable pro-ecological development based on the concept of a new, green economy?

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

In addition, I note the interesting discussion inspired me to the following considerations: Are the biggest global problems of the future underestimated and ignored? In my opinion, both unfavorable processes, ie the global warming and the depletion of the ozone layer in the atmosphere will increase in the future. However, there is still some time to implement the necessary pro-ecological reforms to slow down these processes. It is estimated that there has been a decade of time to carry out the necessary pro-ecological investments, thanks to which it would be possible to implement sustainable pro-ecological development in the global economy. Hedgehogs do not take these actions in the next decade, then these unfavorable climate processes will accelerate in the future and become permanently irreversible. Then, at the end of the twenty-first century, there will be a global climate cataclysm that will threaten the life of all humanity and a large part of other life forms that inhabit the planet Earth. The problem is therefore serious and underestimated by politicians, entrepreneurs, industrialists and many other social groups. The problem of global warming and decreasing ozone layer in the atmosphere is too little publicized and the educated society is not educated enough. In view of the above, the current question is: Are the biggest global problems of the future underestimated and ignored? Please, answer, comments. I invite you to the discussion.

Will it be possible in the future to fully sustain economic development in harmony with ecology?

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.

It will be absolutely necessary, if we want to live on the way we are used to.

Unfortunately, it is impossible

Best Regards Dariusz Prokopowicz

It's the bitter truth@ Dr. Osama

Dear Osama and Mohammad

Although I respect your opinions, I don't concur with those negative statements

It is always possible to reach an equilibrium

The problem is if mankind is willing to study this issue seriously and than take appropriate measures.

Many predictions even form reputed researchers proved to be false, as that by Malthus, when he said that the birth rate will decrease because population increases geometrically while food production increases arithmetically.

Another bright scientist said near the end of the 19th Century,that flight is

impossible since nothing heavier than air can fly

Dear Dr. Nolberto,

Thank you for your opinion. Forcibly carrying and maintaining an equilibrium in harmony are two different things. This is what I feel. 'Ifs' and 'buts' are such excuses on which we can never rely.

Dear Mohammad

Thank you for your answer. However. I don't understand what you mean by 'carrying' an equilibrium

I guess that you refer to the efforts to achieve that equilibrium and further to maintain it.

In my opinion we have also to remember that we don't know which tools and methodologies we will have in the future.

Taking Malthus as an example. Possibly he was correct at his time, based on the information he had and the rudimentary methods to produce food.

He couldn't certainly not envision the use of fertilizers, the chemicals against plagues and the advances achieved in agriculture and biotechnology, let alone the actual computerized farming equipment

We at present are relatively less dependent on fossil fuels than decades ago, thanks to the modern means for producing electricity, the much higher efficiency of our power plants, the protection of endangered species, etc.

Dear Dr. Nolberto,

Thank you for your opinion. I do accept the fact that every ecosystem has its own carrying capacity. When the resources are in plenty an ecosystem can support its inhabitant organisms easily (harmonious). When the limiting factors start appearing in the same ecosystem the unpleasant condition, what I mentioned as 'forcibly carrying', also starts. The world is experiencing a lot of changes. The air we inhale, the food we eat etc. are polluted because the ecosystem itself is polluted due to human activities. We are doing our life activities but with the effects of these environmental problems directly on our health. I am sorry but I don't consider it a harmonious relationship between man and his environment. I am of the opinion that it may become worse with the increasing population, industrialization, urbanization etc. until/unless we find an alternative which does not affect the environment while fulfilling our needs.

Dear Dr. Mahammad

OK, you were talking about carrying capacity, I should have understood that. My apologies

Well, I agree with you on that the relationship between man and the ecosystem is very far from optimum or even acceptable, and that the carrying capacity of many system is probably at its limit

The melting of the poles and the disappearance of many species bear witness of this lack of harmony between man and the environment.

As you say, it will become worse because increasing population, and industrialization.

However. I understand that there is hope. If mankind stops polluting the environment with car exhausts, replacing them with electric vehicles, and which is taking place right now, banning, as has been done some decades ago the use of certain chemical compounds such the Dichloro Difluoro Methane, (Freon) for refrigeration and that destroyed a part of the ozone cover, and which is being recovered with the evidence of the closing of the ozone hole, although not yet completed

Reducing the production of CO2 and methane, by very stringent regulations on power plants discharges, and being replaced for wind turbines and photo-voltaic, and with the reforesting of cities, I believe that perhaps not in a short time but in the future the ecosystem of our planet will improve.

A big problem is very well expressed by the foot print indicator that informs about the inequality between rich countries as USA, Canada, and in Western Europe, were the land use per in person is more that 14 times than in countries as Bangladesh. This is a tragedy

An also big problem is the high birth rate which is paradoxically greater in undeveloped countries than in developed countries where it is indeed decreasing

I don't really know which is the solution to these two big problems, but I guess that there are scientists working on them

Dr. Mohammad,

I agree with your thoughts but then i think with the advent of solar systems, electric vehicles and the rest, man is gradually moving away from those elements that cause damage to pur ecosystem. What is your thoughts on this?

I agree with Egbe

Thank you Dr. Nolberto for your opinion. Your statements speak of your experience and I really enjoyed reading your replies.

The main cause of my concern lies in the developing and the underdeveloped countries. We belong to different worlds (not different parts of the world 😊).

The Netherlands and the United States where you and Mr. Egbe-Etu belong have much cleaner environment, while in my country seeing the real color of the sky has become a matter of chance. I feel that you have never visited this part of the world.

People need to be sensitive to bring a change and the administration also needs to be strict. Can you emagine a situation in which you feel uneasy to breathe still you burst the firecrackers with a mask on your face? Besides the causes we've discussed earlier, there are a lot of rituals here which contribute to pollution. People don't easily give up a ritual.

I'm hopeful of an environment where we can breathe the natural air but it will take time and the wait will be longer in a country like mine.

Dear Dr. Mohammad

You are right, even when I wanted, I could not travel to Saudi Arabia, because my condition of non-Muslim, but I have been in neighboring countries such Lebanon, Bahrain, and the Emirates, as well as in Nepal and India and China. I have seen poverty and high pollution in Mexico City where I lived, and had to use masks, and in the balance of Latin America, so, I know exactly what you mean.

Yes, you are right and in my opinion rituals are a cause of high contamination.

By a chance two months ago I was the reviewer of a paper about environmental issues in the year pilgrimage to the Holy City of Makkah, and really when you have 15,000,000 people visiting the place during a year and people in a very high concentration during a week in the Hajj, one can understand the beliefs of people their will and strength , and the ecological disasters that they can provoke.

But what can we do about that? We can't go against beliefs that extended for centuries

In my opinion, what we need, not only in the case of rituals, but in many other cases of high contamination as I have seen in Varanasi for instance, is education and work together with religious authorities to make some rituals

more flexible

In regard to your last sentence, it is not only your country, you can see poverty and pollution in most countries, where adults and children compete with animals in landfills.

Of course, education is not enough, we need to improve the social conditions of millions of people, we need to instruct people for family planning. How large countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America can do that, I don't know

The above discussion inspired me to the following considerations: In my opinion, sustainable pro-ecological economic development should be an important determinant of shaping economic policy. Do you agree with my opinion? For many centuries, the economies of countries and enterprises have developed without knowing or ignoring the principles of sustainable pro-ecological development. On the other hand, in the 21st century the realities have changed, the global warming process is accelerating and if the reforms of pro-ecological changes, development of renewable energy, recycling development, development of environmental protection etc. are not implemented, in the short term the global warming process will become an irreversible process and at the end of the 21st century the planet Earth, humanity and many other forms of life on Earth are threatened by climatic extermination due to the high rise of negative anomalies and climatic cataclysms. Sustainable pro-ecological economic development, now and in the future, can not be ignored further, it can not be considered a myth. Economics must change towards the concept of green economy. The economic policies of states should also change in such a way as to activate for the development of ecological innovations and support the processes of sustainable pro-ecological development. Please, answer, comments. I invite you to the discussion. Best wishes

Dear Dr. Nolberto,

Thank you for your answer. I am only working in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Basically, I am from India. Visiting the Kingdom by any person who has other religious belief than Islam is not restricted but two cities Mecca and Madina. I have some colleagues from the US who are working here.

Dariusz, I think you're going to have to define your terms.

As I understand it, my answer to "Do you agree with my opinion (that economic policy should be shaped by sustainable pro-ecological economic development)" would be "Umm, not really. I agree with the Development side, but not really the Economic side. Economic policy should be derived from an understanding of social and ecological realities. In effect, after ecological and social requirements are in place, the economic policies can fill in whatever is left. The vast majority of the real economy doesn't show up when counting money - between 2 and 5 times as much effort is put into unpaid labour for others than paid labour for others (range is dependent on definitions). Increasing the amount of paid labour doesn't automatically mean 'development', even if that increase is done in such a way as to reduce impacts on the ecosystem."

Development is an increase in quality of life between two points of time. Manfred Max Neef describes needs very well, and explains how quality of life comes from having needs met. Increasing paid employment does not automatically cause more needs to be met - it increases specialization, which should mean an increase in productivity per person, so thus should allow a higher amount of consumption per hour of paid labour. For people with an ecological footprint significantly below the biocapacity of the community their are living in, an increase in consumption will mean an increase in quality of life (both short term and long term). For people with an ecological footprint significantly above the biocapacity of the community, an increase in consumption will mean no meaningful change in quality of life in the short term, and a significant loss in quality of life in the long term (shared by the whole community). For those wealthy people, the only real improvements in Quality of Life will come from Human Development - which is mostly on the social side, not the economic.

I would agree with your statement if you removed 'pro-ecological economic' from the statement, and then defined 'Sustainable Development' in a self-consistent manner. I've attached the logic I used for just such a definition - it's a work in progress, and I'm ready to polish it as required. I'd be interested in seeing what definitions you use.

Humanity strives to exploit nature and it must. However, the world is a power play. So, it is a dynamical system and physics instructs us clearly - we cannot realise a single trajectory of ‘harmony’. However, the social dimension of the fourth industrial revolution should reduce ecological abuse. Cf. Preprint Transport and the Fourth Industrial Revolution

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

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-innovations and renewable energy improve the issue of environmental protection?

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

I think the environment is in a state of change, which is getting worse economically

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

How do ecological innovations co-create the implementation of sustainable pro-ecological economic development?

In the coming years, humanity should carry out pro-ecological reforms of the classic energy based on the burning of minerals by converting it into environmentally friendly energy based on renewable energy sources. It should be possible to allocate as much as possible to this environmentally-friendly transformation of the energy industry because what will be realized in this matter over the next dozen or so years depends on the pace of the progressive and accelerating process of greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. Ecological innovations developed primarily in the field of new technologies of renewable energy sources are helpful in the process of proecological energy transformation.

Thanks to ecological innovations, the scope and possibilities of implementing sustainable ecological development are increasing. In connection with the progressing global warming process, it is necessary to develop eco-innovations in the field of renewable energy development, improvement of sorting techniques, recycling, electromobility, organic farming, plastic reduction from packaging and conversion of plastics to biodegradable materials, etc.

In this way, through the development of ecological innovations and their implementation on an industrial scale, it is possible to implement sustainable pro-ecological economic development in modern economies. This is a key challenge for humanity in the 21st century. It is a challenge to the necessary and possibly quick implementation in the coming years.

Do you agree with my opinion on this matter?

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

How do ecological innovations co-create the implementation of sustainable pro-ecological economic development?

Please reply

I invite you to the discussion

Thank you very much

Best wishes

The above discussion inspired me to the following considerations:

How should the use of non-renewable natural resources be reduced so that sustainable ecological development is possible?

For many years, the consumption of clean water and minerals of energy resources and strategic industrial raw materials, such as metal ores necessary for various branches of the manufacturing industry, have been growing at a faster rate. On the other hand, the pollution of the natural environment grows, the degradation of the natural environment through mines extracting energy minerals. The amount of waste on dumps of unsorted municipal waste is growing, as well as litter that pollutes the natural environment. More and more plastic waste floats in the seas and oceans. The scale of degradation of the natural environment through the development of human civilizations is increasing.

The goal of counteracting these unfavorable processes of human civilizational activity is to carry out pro-ecological reforms in the energy sector consisting in the transformation of the classical energy based on the burning of minerals for the construction of new power plants producing renewable energy. Reforming the energy sector is necessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the increasingly rapid global warming process. It is necessary to develop eco-innovations thanks to which plastic in packaging will be replaced with quickly biodegradable and / or consumable materials. Waste segregation systems and electromobility should be improved. More funds from public funds of the state should be allocated for the implementation of pro-ecological reforms of reclamation of a degraded civilization environment and the implementation of nature conservation programs, natural ecosystems and biodiversity.

However, all those ecological ones necessary to carry out the reform will not ensure achieving in a global perspective fully sustainable pro-ecological development if in subsequent years the consumption of natural resources, especially water and earth's energy and other minerals indispensable for various branches of the production industry. Therefore, in order for the implementation of fully sustainable ecological development to be possible in the future, the increase in the exploitation of natural resources, especially non-renewable natural resources, should be significantly reduced.

Do you agree with my opinion on this matter?

Therefore, I am asking you the following questions:

- How should the use of unrecognized natural resources be reduced so that sustainable ecological development is possible?

- Is it necessary to pursue a model of zero economic growth?

- Should the implementation of the zero-growth model be mainly based on reducing the consumption of natural resources?

- How should the use of non-renewable natural resources be reduced so that sustainable ecological development is possible?

- Will the protection of nature, natural ecosystems and biodiversity significantly increase by reducing the use of non-renewable natural resources?

Please reply

I invite you to the discussion

Thank you very much

Best wishes

Thank you for sharing @ Dr. Darius Prokopowicz. We have to think and act accordingly to ensure our own survival.

Dear Dariusz, thank you for opening this discussion

From my point of view the answer to your question is affirmative.

We can and we must look for ways to harmonize ecology and growth.

There is a lot that we can do, and in some extent, that purpose is in part underway via recycling, reducing consumption of renewable and not renewable goods and making a better use of what we have now. At present, for instance, the amount of cooked and raw food that goes to the garbage is staggering, we need to consume less.

There is another tool that I believe will help mankind in years to come, and that is new technologies, for instance, replacing steel and aluminium, with carbon fibers, as is already done in the aviation industry. We have to protect our forests by using less trees to produce paper, and even drastically reduce its consumption, and we have to reduce the production of plastics that take years to disintegrate, by products that do that in weeks. Most possibly, the invention of computers and the electronic communications, may help in this en devour.

It is impossible to predict the future, even with all the mathematical tools that we have today, but also because we can't predict the future with actual tools and technology.

The best example is the Malthus theory back in the XVIII century and who said that population increases in geometric proportion while food increases at arithmetic proportion, and then, that the civilization will disappear because there will not be enough food.

In my humble opinion he was possibly right regarding population increase but he erred in the rate of food production.

Why?

Because he was making his predictions based on the existing technology for food production at his time.

He couldn't know about man-generated genetic changes in crops, nor about fertilizers and plague fighters nor about the highly efficient farm machinery of our day.

I hope that this very brief and elemental comments may answer your legitimate questions, and no, I don't believe in zero growth because it is against human attitude; the whole history of mankind, especially in the last two centuries, shows that humanity is always looking to improve the quality of life, either with vaccines, better health care, elimination of pests, more education, etc.