Let's assume that the shift from the pure economy to green markets allows us to keep the dirty economy alive for another 50 years or 100 years or 150 years.
And then we will be facing the need to shift from dirty economies to clean economies either because minimizing pollution did not work or non-renewable enery sources are then exahusted or the few remaing non-renewable energy sources are horded by some. By that time the cost of closing the renewable energy techology gap as compared of doing it now will be for sure more expensive and out of the budgent of most capitalist countries, especially developing countries, and they will be facing then economic black outs,...and massive social discontent.... Does that means that the age of green markets wll or may end up with a social bang?. What do you think?
We are currently experiencing a global growth in renewables. A major threat to the expanding speed of installing renewables is the current development of the oil price, I think (without discussing its reasons). I do see the danger of a social bang in this regard but have trust in developing nations to beave smarter than the industrial nations did so far. Morocco is doing great work with solar parks, Kenya installs wind energy and so on... A higher possibility for a social bang is given by the growing difference between poor and rich as a energy cut with a reason like "we cannot pay for renewables right now" seems more and more implausible from the "poorer" part of society as they see global financial flows diverting around them.
If you are talking about the time when there will be no oil and gas, then the society will have no choice whether it likes green energy or not. But industrial energy demands are much higher than sun-water-wind can provide. So I expect new technologies of providing energy (not really green) to emerge.
Nowadays investments in green technology are very risky. I think, it means that only very rich players like corporations and rich countries must take that risks and everyone else can use their experience after that (it is less risky). Renewable energy sourses are worth using anyway, so it is no point to give them up.
Andreas, good day. Moving from the dirty economy to clean economy requires a plan to transition as orderly as possible....and close the renewable energy gap using socially friendly tools/technologies.....there is no such a plan yet....renewables are seen as complement not substitutes....the more we wait the more it will cost later to close that gap....if the minimizing plan does not work, there will be more pollution, more extreme poverty and a wider renewable energy technology gap.....this scenario is likely and it is the source of my question...The transition should be when there is still room for transition not after system collapse....
Have a nice day....
As food for thougthts I am sharing this article Andreas....
From dying to eternal economies: When should the paradigm shift from the non-renewable resources based economy take place?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281276531_From_dying_to_eternal_economies_When_should_the_paradigm_shift_from_the_non-renewable_resources_based_economy_take_place
Article From dying to eternal economies: When should the paradigm sh...
Good day Anna....Not having more non-renewable sources of energy anymore is one possibility....Another is some countries hording what is left only for themselves.....and the other possibility is that the pollution minimization approach called green markets does not work....and time will pass....
By that time starting a transition in any of those cases will be more expensive and socially and environmentally more disruptive then than for example if they had paired the keeping the old economy alive at minimum pollution while we transition to the clean economy and close the renewable energy technology gap....a global plan consitent with local energy needs.....we could have the use the dirty economy before it collapse to transition....with a plan today we could have avoided a more coatic transition...Inverstment in renewable under the pure economy was more risky than under the green economy as the green economic man is supposed to be willing to pay more than the pure economic man for a cleaner world....that is the theory....
It may be that the risk non-renewable vrs risk renewable are being look from two different markets, the non-renewable risk comes from the old traditional market and the renewable risk comes from the green market....a market inconsistency arising because of the paradigm shift knowledge gap as we shifted from pure market to green markets, but we are still thinking in terms of pure markets because of the knowledge gap...
I think we missed a good opportunity in the last global warming agreement to at least put in place a commission to plan for a transition globally and locally....just like the Bruntland commission evaluated the working of the traditional market....this commission should study the working of dirty economies and the best time to transition orderly to the clean economy....in a socially responsible manner...
Thank you for your comment Anna...
As food for thoughts I am sharing here these two articles:
Renewable energy vrs social needs: What do environmentalists must do to induce the development of a sustainable market fueled only by renewable energy?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281276208_Renewable_energy_vrs_social_needs_What_do_environmentalists_must_do_to_induce_the_development_of_a_sustainable_market_fueled_only_by_renewable_energy
Understanding the Road Towards the Current Dominant Non-Renewable Energy Use Based Economy: Using An Inversegram to Point Out a Step by Step Strategy Towards an Efficient Dominant Renewable Energy Use Based Economy
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281230333_Understanding_the_Road_Towards_the_Current_Dominant_Non-Renewable_Energy_Use_Based_Economy_Using_An_Inversegram_to_Point_Out_a_Step_by_Step_Strategy_Towards_an_Efficient_Dominant_Renewable_Energy_Use_
Article Renewable energy vrs social needs: What do environmentalists...
Article Understanding the Road Towards the Current Dominant Non-Rene...
Good day Caser, your manuscript is not directly related to the question, but thank you for sharing it....
If I properly understood, your proposition is to predictively work on avoiding the gap in "energetic evolution" of the world. Indeed most governments don't seem to think of this problem. Still environmentalists are not the ones to address your articles, they are not who decides. Politicians could help you to popularise this idea. Maybe you could participate in such conferences, where politicians can notice you.
Anna, what I am saying is that world leaders and local leaders are not being proactive, in two ways: a) they are not implementing green market/globalwarming policies/sustainable development goals with the requirement to be socially friendly;and b) they are focused only on minimizing pollution now and in the long-term with no plan to transition to clean economies....These two things, when the need to transition comes as you said there will be then no choice it will happen at time of perhaps global social unrest...
Did you read the papers? Do it when you have time, they are designed to inform and give food for thoughts...
I am sharing here more food for thoughts:
From dying to eternal economies: When should the paradigm shift from the non-renewable resources based economy take place?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281276531_From_dying_to_eternal_economies_When_should_the_paradigm_shift_from_the_non-renewable_resources_based_economy_take_place
Have a nice dayt
Article From dying to eternal economies: When should the paradigm sh...
Sharing my most recent publications as food for thoughts, hoping you may find them interesting:
Adam Smith and Karl Marx Under the Sustainability Eye: Pointing Out and Comparing the Sustainability Gaps Behind these Two Great Simplification Failures
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299885202_Adam_Smith_and_Karl_Marx_Under_the_Sustainability_Eye_Pointing_Out_and_Comparing_the_Sustainability_Gaps_Behind_these_Two_Great_Simplification_Failures
Understanding the Death and Paradigm Shift of Adam Smith’s model: Was Going Green the Only Option? If not, Is This Option the Most Sustainable One?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299882613_Understanding_the_Death_and_Paradigm_Shift_of_Adam_Smith%27s_model_Was_Going_Green_the_Only_Option_If_not_Is_This_Option_the_Most_Sustainable_One
The Unintended Consequences of Paradigm Death and Shift: Was the Arrow Impossibility Theorem Left Behind?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299879934_The_Unintended_Consequences_of_Paradigm_Death_and_Shift_Was_the_Arrow_Impossibility_Theorem_Left_Behind
Paradigm Evolution and Sustainability Thinking: Using a Sustainability Inversegram to State Paradigm Death and Shift Expectations under Win-Win and No Win-Win Situations
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298353982_Paradigm_Evolution_and_Sustainability_Thinking_Using_a_Sustainability_Inversegram_to_State_Paradigm_Death_and_Shift_Expectations_under_Win-Win_and_No_Win-Win_Situations
Article Adam Smith and Karl Marx Under the Sustainability Eye: Point...
Article Understanding the Death and Paradigm Shift of Adam Smith’s m...
Article The Unintended Consequences of Paradigm Death and Shift: Was...
Data Paradigm Evolution and Sustainability Thinking: Using a Sust...
I flipped through your papers. They are interesting. But I am not sure that the ABC model is realistic in all contexts. It seems that in aBC, aBc and other such models one of the "figures" benefits because others are oppressed. I don't know if the win-win situation is possible for all people on Earth at once.
Dear Anna, thank you for commenting
The green market model GM = aBC, assumes and expects win-win economy environment outcomes. Social isssues(a) are passive as this model assumes social externality neutrality.
The sustainability market S = ABC assumes and expects win-win-win society economy environment outcomes. There is no externality neutrality assumptions here.
If you think that win-win situations can not be found, why do you think we shifted from a win-lose-lose model as the traditional market model towards a lose-win-win model like the green market model?....when they say that low carbon development for the globe is the way to go they are saying win-win development solutions exit and need to be found, do not you think so?.
Have a nice day
And if win-win solutions exist and can be found, why win-win-win solutions can not be found and we know they exist?...that is at the core of sustainability market theory...
Maybe the win-win-win situation can be seen as division of benefits by 33%-33%-33%. Not everyone will see it as "win" for them, but it can be called sustainable.
Dear Ana, that could be one of the possible outcomes outcome of the process call "optimization". You do not get such an outcome under maximization rule that was ruling the dead traditional market and you do not get such an outcome under green market eigher as it assume social externality neutrality..
The economy used to get the most if not all befofre under the traditional market, under green markets the economy can not get it all any more it has to account for environmental externalities and that is a partial optimization position,
I am sharing this as more food for thoughts:
The Unintended Consequences of Paradigm Death and Shift: Was the Arrow Impossibility Theorem Left Behind?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299879934_The_Unintended_Consequences_of_Paradigm_Death_and_Shift_Was_the_Arrow_Impossibility_Theorem_Left_Behind?ev=prf_pub
Article The Unintended Consequences of Paradigm Death and Shift: Was...
Good day everyone
I am sharing here this article unpublished and you can use it as food for thoughts:
Is Environmental Externality Management a Correction of Adam Smith’s Model to Make It Environmentally Friendly and Shift it Towards Green Markets or Is It a Distortion on Top of Another Distortion?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309463581_Is_Environmental_Externality_Management_a_Correction_of_Adam_Smith%27s_Model_to_Make_It_Environmentally_Friendly_and_Shift_it_Towards_Green_Markets_or_Is_It_a_Distortion_on_Top_of_Another_Distortion
Have a nice day
Article Is Environmental Externality Management a Correction of Adam...
Dear friends, here sharing my most recent article which I trust you may find interesting in terms of food for thoughts:
If Going From Free Markets to Non-Free Markets is the Way to Go: Does This Means the End of Rational Decision Making Thinking or Is This Just a Temporary Block of a Perfect Paradigm Shift to Green Markets?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312092336_If_Going_From_Free_Markets_to_Non-Free_Markets_is_the_Way_to_Go_Does_This_Means_the_End_of_Rational_Decision_Making_Thinking_or_Is_This_Just_a_Temporary_Block_of_a_Perfect_Paradigm_Shift_to_Green_Mark
Article If Going From Free Markets to Non-Free Markets is the Way to...
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Agricultural Science
- Environmental Science