I've been an environmentalist for quite some time. Not surprisingly, my environmentalism has matured over the years in tandem with, or perhaps as a result of, some developments in the broader environmental movement.
When I was younger, I subscribed to the view that the economy and environment were opposing forces, and if you wanted to preserve the environment, that meant curbing economic growth. I no longer believe this to be necessarily true, and nor do large swaths of the environmental movement. Similarly, more and more businesses are coming to realize that better environmental performance does not come at the expense of profits. In fact, in many cases, quite the opposite is true.
Today, many people realize that it's not about the environment versus the economy, not a tradeoff between unemployment and pollution. It's not about picking one or the other. In short, we cannot choose between the environment and the economy. We need both. And this is our challenge: to create the conditions so that both can thrive.
This realization is at the heart of an emerging school of environmentalism often encapsulated by the term "green economy." It reflects a growing recognition that, on the one hand, the challenge of sustainability rests almost entirely in getting the economy right. Putting a price on carbon, valuing natural capital and ending perverse subsidies, among other things, are all vital to meaningful environmental reform.
And, on the other hand, if we wish to create a sustainable economy, we must pay more attention to the environment. Against a backdrop of climate change, resource scarcity, the massive loss of biodiversity and a variety of other environmental issues, business as usual is increasingly risky.
The notion of the green economy also differs from some other schools of thought by focusing on the opportunity presented by change, rather than the burden. To be sure, transitioning to a green economy will come at a cost. You have to slow down to turn a corner. But it is also the key to unlocking new opportunities for economic growth and jobs. At least, so says the OECD, among others.
The green economy will be one of the two themes at the upcoming conference on sustainable development, known as Rioრ, to be held in Rio de Janeiro in 2012, 20 years after the historic Earth Summit.
It is also the subject of a report officially released last week by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) in preparation for the RIO+20 Summit, titled "Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication."
"With smart public policies, governments can grow their economies, generate decent employment and accelerate social progress in a way that keeps humanity's ecological footprint within the planet's carrying capacity."
Like I said, it's not about choosing one or the other, but about creating the conditions to support both the economy and the environment. It's also about finding ways to ensure a more equitable distribution of the spoils of progress.
UNEP's report acknowledges that this transition comes at a cost and, in the short term, some jobs will be lost. But in the medium to long term, we'll be much better off.
We can illustrate with an example from a recent report on China which concluded that 800,000 workers in small coal power plants in China will likely to lose their jobs due to climate mitigation actions, however, some 2.5 million jobs could be created by 2020 in the wind energy sector alone.
And this isn't just theory. Although they may be far from a green economy, according to recent accounts, China already counts over half a million renewable energy jobs. Germany has about 370,000 people employed in renewable energy manufacturing. The U.S. solar industry now employs over 100,000 people. And renewable energy is just one facet of the green economy. Nearly every major economy is pursuing some manner of green economic strategy because they see the opportunity therein.
I'm very excited by the emergence of the green economy and inspired by the global progress made toward it. As a concept, it has bridged the chasm between the environment and the economy, and created a space where people of diverse interests can come together and articulate a common vision. And as a practice, it is showing us that we can do things better.
We don't need to choose between our environment and economy. We need to choose both. And work toward bringing them into balance.
Follow Keith Brooks on Twitter: www.twitter.com/keithdbrooks
David R. Jones: Why Greece's Debt Shouldn't Be the G20's Biggest Economic Issue
OSCE promotes green economy principles in Kazakhstan
Lessons from a leading green economy
Financing Green Fund Expected to be a Hot Topic at Climate Change Talks
it's a human thing!
I get the economic ramifications of certain policy's...I do. But, it's so short sighted.....doesn't anyone think beyond their own life-time?
We have adequate oil reserves and are the Saudi Arabia of coal and natural gas. If we were allowed unlimited access to our own energy sources while steering some of the profits from same for research and development of inexpensive batteries, solar arrays, wave power, hydrogen and a plethora of other kinds of renewable energy we could be energy independent in ten years. In another ten we could drop the oil/gas/coal training wheels.
Absent an "all of the above" approach, it is doubtful we could ever achieve energy independence considering the political facts on the ground.
Since global warming is happening, we need to minimize use of coal and natural gas as well.
We should be working toward the ideal: Use electricity to power transportation. Use renewables to generate electricity.
America should begin buying up its coal power plants and shutting them down as new clean renewable power plants come on line. This will avoid the market pricing situation of prices suddenly falling because new capacity exists. The only way to make the transition painless without adding new burdens for consumers is by buying up the coal power plants and then shutting them down, one-by-one in an ordinarily fashion maintaining market stability.
It's hard to know if this "green economy" talk is a genuine wakeup-and-join-the-real-world summons by the environmental activists or simply a PR stunt to put a more positive spin on their implied "eliminate all humans" narrative.
I shake my head in exasperation when I see activists pushing solar energy but simultaneously blocking power line construction. Activists grumble about overfishing and bottom trawlers which clear cut the ocean bottom, yet they do everything in their power to prevent aquaculture from supplying the seafood demand lest it put the "salt of the earth" fishermen out of business.
It is tempting to see this latest as PR, spin and fund raising ploys.
Its like buying oil at $15 per barrel !!
see
Amory Lovins at the Berkeley Lab
http://www.archive.org/details/AmoryLovins-ReinventingFire-BerkeleyLab2011
all my Amory Lovins videos
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=globalcooperativeforumDOTnet&sort=-downloads&page=5
Black Swans are highly improbable innovations with enormous implications.
For a few examples, see Moving Beyond Oil; Cheap Green; Running on Water and Black Swans on the Aesop Institute website.
The Introduction to that site provides an overview of a little recognized potential mortal threat to millions of lives that may motivate rapid action toward decentralizing electric power generation.
The only practical solution is to add tariffs or taxes on products sold based on their manufacturing, transportation, and sustainability footprint!
We watch the developing world in 8 years raise coal usage for the planet by themselves over 50% from a planet total of 92 quadrillion BTU's split evenly between the developing world and the industrial world. The developing world is projected to consume over 200 quadrillion BTU's of coal energy by 2020! Meaning the industrial world could outlaw coal and the planet would be consuming twice as much coal by 2020 as it did in 2000!
If we converted to the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor as our main source of energy, we could supply all of the fuel need for all the energy we need with 100 workers at one site in Idaho.
If we had plenty of cheap non-carbon energy, we could synthesize our fuels from air and water at a zero net carbon release. We could also use that energy to capture and sequester c02, thereby reducing to c02 content.
The "green" economy is a giant myth as well. Consider that amount of non renewable s required to build all those electric cars and wind turbines.
The fact is that a very large percentage of our total energy needs will continue to be fossil fuels for a long time yet. The reasons are plenty. No political will, lobbying and bribing of the oil industry, time for emerging green tech to mature etc.
The problem is that we don't have that kind of time. The results of climate change are here already. The need for a replacement is now...not two decades from now or later.
The other problem is population growth. We are already in overshoot. Even if we had a replacement for oil and gas now it would have the consequence of increasing population growth in those places it was utilized.