In 2012 Rio + 20 conference(UNCSD) we were going to go green markets, green growth and green economies, which means we were going to go the way of environmental pollution reduction markets, but we know today that we did not go that way.
We chose to go the way of a patch through environmental pollution management markets instead of going for the fix, green markets, knowing or perhaps failing to know that in environmental pollution management markets the root cause of the pollution production problem is still not fixed.
No wonder, the environmental situation now is worse than it was in 2012, which raises the question: Will the period 2012 to now and perhaps into the foreseeable future be known in the history of economic thought as the green market paradigm shift avoidance period?
What do you think?
Green markets, green jobs, green economies are very uncertain terms, which have diverse meanings for representatives of different scientific and economic schools and for politicians.
Good day Tetiana, thank you for taking the time to write.
Do you know that there is green markets and there is dwarf green markets, there is green growth and dwarf green growth, there is green economies and dwarf green economices, there are green jobs and dwarf green jobs. This is because since 2012 RIo + 20 conference/UNCSD we decided to go green markets, but then after the agreement to go green markets they went dwarf green markets. Do you know that green markets are pollution reduction markets, dwarf green markets are pollution management markets, and that the traditional market of Adam Smith is a pollution production market? My publications provide some good food for thoughts in these areas.
In short the market cleared by the green market price is a green market, any market not cleared by a green market price IS NOT A GREEN MARKET, so there is no actual confusion for scientist who follow the scientific truth.
Respectfully yours
- Badges
- Science topic