What is it about?
When the Brundtland Commission said in 1987 that the business-as-usual model of Adam Smith needed to address the social and environmental issues associated with it, this meant that there was a socio-environmental pollution problem separating the dirty traditional economy from the clean economy. When the UNCSD in 2012 gave priority to addressing the environmental issue only associated with the dirty traditional market model, this meant that there was an environmental pollution problem between the environmentally dirty traditional market and the environmentally clean market. This situation brought the need to think about how the transition from the environmentally dirty traditional market to the environmentally clean market could be framed step by step, but instead of thinking in terms of transition to the environmentally clean economy attention was given since 2012 to adopting environmental externality management-based markets or dwarf green markets. Whether mainstream thinkers in the sustainable development area failed in 2012 to see how the transition road from environmentally dirty traditional markets to environmentally clean markets could be built is not clear, but what it is clear is that there is no transition link from dwarf green markets to environmentally clean markets as dwarf green markets are still active environmental externality-based markets as the root cause of the environmental problem is not yet corrected. And this raises the question, how can the 2012 road to transition from environmental pollution based traditional economies to environmentally clean economies that the world never built be pointed out? What are the implications of this? Among the goals of this paper is to provide answers to those questions.
Featured Image
Photo by Chelsea Scott on Unsplash
Why is it important?
It shows that the world in 2012 as they intended to do, had to go the way of green markets, green economies and green growth if the wanted to set up a transition road from environmental pollution production markets to environmentally clean markets, but they did not. The world went the way of dwarf green markets, markets under permanent environmental failure with no transition link to the environmentally clean economy. The goal of the article is to share food for thoughts on how a road to transition from dirty economies to clean economies could have been built since 2012 Rio + 20.
Perspectives
Whether intentionally or not, the world going environmental externality management markets or dwarf green markets since 2012 meant that transitioning from dirty markets to clean markets was not in the mind of decision-makers and academics then as they knew or should have know that they were building a road with no transition path to environmentally clean economies. The paper show how it could have been done if we wanted to create a transition path from dirty to clean and still be making money.
Mr. Lucio Muñoz
Independent QLC researcher
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: SUSTAINABILITY THOUGHTS 139: HOW CAN THE 2012 ROAD TO TRANSITION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION BASED TRADITIONAL ECONOMIES TO THE ENVIRONMENTALLY CLEAN ECONOMIES THAT THE WORLD NEVER BUILT BE POINTED OUT?, International Journal of Education Humanities and Social Science, January 2022, Alpinus Publication,
DOI: 10.54922/ijehss.2022.0440.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page







