Register

Peak Oil is You


Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)


Page added on January 20, 2012

Bookmark and Share

The Green Economy, Boon or Menace?

The Green Economy, Boon or Menace? thumbnail

The development of the green economy is the subject of pitched debate among specialists. While some believe it will deepen social inequalities and increase corporate control over natural and biological resources, others highlight its potential role in protecting the environment and creating employment.

“The green economy does not challenge current systems of production, such as the agro-alimentary industry, nor does it aim in any way to change patterns of consumption,” stressed Silvia Ribeiro, the Latin America director of the non-governmental Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration (ETC Group).

Ribeiro told Tierramérica that some of the most troubling aspects of the green economy include “the massive use of biomass for fuel production, and the use of new technologies like synthetic biology, which can generate high levels of toxicity.”

In its study “Who Will Control the Green Economy?”, published Dec. 15, 2011, the ETC Group argues that the development of a green economy will primarily benefit large corporations, unless changes are made to the current models of production and consumption of goods and services and international governance.

It reveals that large transnational corporations in the energy, pharmaceutical, food and chemical industries are already forming alliances to exploit biomass and grab control of natural resources like land and water.

The study takes a specific look at a range of different sectors, including synthetic biology, bioinformatics and genome data generation, marine and other aquatic biomass, seeds and pesticides, plant gene banks, fertiliser and mining industries, forestry and paper, the animal pharmaceutical industry and livestock genetics.

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) defines the green economy as “a system of economic activities related to the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services that result in improved human wellbeing over the long term, while not exposing future generations to significant environmental risks and ecological scarcities.”

The green economy will be a central theme at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20), taking place Jun. 20- 22 in the southern Brazilian city of Rio de Janeiro, 20 years after the first Earth Summit held in the same city in 1992.

The objective of the conference is to secure renewed political commitment for sustainable development, assess the progress to date and the remaining gaps in the implementation of the outcomes of the major summits on sustainable development, and address new and emerging challenges

Rio+20 will focus specifically on two themes: a green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication, and the institutional framework for sustainable development.

UNEP has actively promoted the green economy since 2008, although it acknowledges the validity of some of the concerns raised around it.

“The green economy is an imperative. One of its goals is social equity and human wellbeing. The environment is recognised as a source of wealth,” U.S. economist Steven Stone, chief of UNEP’s Geneva-based Economics and Trade Branch, told Tierramérica.

Stone visited Mexico last week for the presentation of a national prospective study on the green economy, co-produced by the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT) and Tecnológico de Monterrey, a private university.

“The real question is whether those who do the greatest damage to the environment are truly contributing to what needs to be done,” commented the director of the School of Economics at the public National Autonomous University of Mexico, Roberto Escalante.

“That is why there is a risk that greening the economy will deepen existing inequalities, so that those who have the least will bear the greatest costs of the environmental impacts,” he told Tierramérica

Escalante is conducting a research study, which he expects to complete during the first quarter of this year, on the effects of agriculture and deforestation on the environment, commissioned by SEMARNAT.

In the run-up to Rio+20, civil society organisations in Latin America are promoting a reworking of sustainable development with an emphasis on social and ecological aspects and a new economy to confront poverty and the concentration of wealth.

The World Economic and Social Survey 2011, published by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, recommends the investment of 1.9 billion dollars annually in green technologies over the next 40 years to combat the effects of climate change.

UNEP believes green investment should contribute to reducing the energy and water demands and carbon footprint of the production of goods and services.

“There are many alternatives, and the most convincing is the peasant farming economy, which already accounts for 70 percent of world food production,” noted Ribero, whose organisation focuses on the environmental, social and economic impacts of new technologies.

The ETC Group study calls for the establishment of antitrust regimes to prevent monopoly control over resources and highlights the central importance of agriculture and food sovereignty.

It also emphasises the need for greater international awareness around the proposed “techno fixes” which “are not capable of addressing systemic problems of poverty, hunger and environmental crises.”

“One of the key issues is the value of nature, which is not taken into account,” said Stone. “It is not included in economic calculations. These services need to be valued with limits and regulations.”

For his part, Escalante, whose research aims at offering alternatives for low-carbon agricultural production, advocates the use of new technologies, the participation of university institutions, and the formulation of integrated public policies.

“Environmental issues are essentially financial issues. This will be a key subject of discussion at Rio+20. A new vision should prevail, incorporating the prices of the environment in the world of the economy and establishing a scheme that guarantees equity,” he stressed.

IPS



4 Comments on "The Green Economy, Boon or Menace?"

  1. Mike on Fri, 20th Jan 2012 11:23 pm 

    I wonder what planet these people are talking about. None that I recognize. But…

    “…peasant farming economy…”

    Oh, what a giveaway!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAaWvVFERVA

  2. kervennic on Sat, 21st Jan 2012 12:20 pm 

    A peasant economy will never worked: how are you going to feed all these universitarians and rulers if they become useless ?

    The important thing is that they keep their position and discuss happily the lifestyle of the planet. We all know that too well. This is the essence of modern civilisation: centralisation of power and creation of a disempowered working mass.

    Hopefully they will fail to replace oil. And given their high level of incompetence, there is good hope !

  3. tubaplayer on Sat, 21st Jan 2012 10:26 pm 

    They WILL fail to replace oil, of that there is no doubt. The only doubt is the timescale.

    Don’t dismiss all the universitarians – some of them are actively thinking about the problems we face.

    Rulers, yes. Lots of heads on posts at city limits might just do it.

    I grow increasingly happy to be in a place where the tools of choice (particulary for the older generation) are the hoe, the spade and the scythe.

  4. kervennic on Sun, 22nd Jan 2012 2:05 am 

    I used to work at university as a project rsearcher in Physics.

    I think people that have not been, as employees, in university have an extremely naive view of how this works and what it implies (grants proposal, publication …).

    Haven’t you notice that there is a cure for cancer coming next year since 1980 or so ?

    Have you seen a real cure for cancer….

    The point has never been to cure cancer but to foster research and have bigger centers, more instruments and larger number of post docs. This is what counts for the survival of the scientist. Finding a cure does not solve is career equation, especially if it requires taking original, tedious, non consensual ways. It is simply suicidal.

    And in the meantime cancer rate in western society is soaring.

    This is to compare with the countless reports, such as these of the famous swiss doctor shweitzer in Africa, that cancer was strangely absent in more primitive society (among old people).

    I think we can expect a similar efficient input of scientist on every subject that regards other growth defect of modern civilizatioin.

    That does not mean that a critical, scientific approach can’t be usefull. I am a complete fan of Science.

    But this is not what you find in universities.

    Actually many creative scientists were outsiders. For instance Faraday, or even einstein who was an employee in a patent office. Today, i don’t see how a guy like einstein could be published, by the way…

    Big professors are too busy to actually think about what they are doing. It is more about marketing.

    PS: I agree scythe is an extremely enjoyable activity… as long as there is no boss to tell us to cut the grass.
    It is really a pity to use a noisy machine that spits smelly gas in your face and usually needs to be repaired quite often…and costs a lot.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *