This depends on policy makers and the people.

There allready enough knowledge how to tranform the social market economy to an ecological social market economy. the general idea is internalizing external costs (e.g. taxes on pollution, emissions trading, bans). But look at both our governments and what parts of our society want: They want a funcioning environment but they do not want to impose changes which lead to different cost e.g. for fuels. See the brand new discussion on speed limit on german autobahn and the long history of german automotive industry (and car lovers too) in preventing EU-legislation which would lead to less fuel consumption of cars. See the polish position in the last years regarding the EU-ETS.

One source (of many..)

Green Economy - Shaping change with CSR

Download via: http://www.4sustainability.de/en/corporateresponsibility/publications.html#c837

In social economic market, appeal to Human value system is the key point of marketing.

So, Communication strategy for it should be pro human value system

All this depends on the educational and social change that is implemented in the various agencies that have impact and influence currently, the positive side is that we are already beginning to observe a change in the economic policies that are already focused on environmental care, especially in what refers to public policies of regulation for large manufacturing companies.

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

What is the crucial difference between the two concepts?

Yes, I fully agree with Dear Mirna Leko-Šimić. In the situation of defining both models of pro-social systems of market economies with the public service system being developed, the difference may be small and may mainly concern the issue of the scale and role of pro-ecological sectors such as energy based on renewable energy sources in the model of sustainable pro-ecological development and not necessarily this type of energy in the classic social market economy.