Sylvia Fogarty-Phipps, 585816 Is a green economy really possible?

Sustainability discourses have embraced the concept of a green economy, however the model contains many major structural problems that make it impossible to achieve. Brand (2011) argues that like sustainable development, the concept of a green economy is indeed an oxymoron (Brand, 2011, 28), as according to the theory of Wolfgang Sachs (1999, xii), economic growth and environmental protection cannot exist simultaneously. A green economy has the potential to ensure the preservation of the earths ecosystem along new economic growth pathways while contributing at the same time to poverty reduction (UNDESA, 2011, v). Creating and sustaining a green economy is technically feasible; society has the technology, knowledge and resources to do so. However poverty eradication is impossible, thus the green economy model is unrealistic. Furthermore, in a world in which economics and personal livelihood are prioritised over environmental issues (Adger et al., 2006, 16), and where people are unwilling to sacrifice their standard of living for the greater good of the environment nor face the short-term losses associated with greening the economy, achieving a green economy is not realistic. Greening the economy will initially come at a cost to those in the fossil fuel industry, and as the economy relies on the exploitation of fossil fuels, this may be unappealing to many. Dominant power relations that exist in the world today will further limit the possibility of greening the economy (Brand, 20111, 28), as will sceptics and the increasing number of military conflicts that will arise due to resource scarcities. The authors of one of the first books on a green economy, Blueprint for a Green Economy

Sylvia Fogarty-Phipps, 585816 (1989), agree sustainable development is impossible, because todays economies are biased towards depleting natural capital to secure growth. (Pearce et al., 1989). The current predominating neoliberal consumer economy has clear global consequences. Consumption of food, energy and fossil fuels results in the release of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the most toxic being carbon dioxide (CO2), methane gas, nitrous oxide and CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) (Ponting, 2007, 380). GHGs destroy the ozone layer and increase global temperatures (Ponting, 2007, 380). A 2C rise in global temperatures would pose a threat to human societies, and thus global warming is the greatest threat the world faces (Ponting, 2007). A failure to reduce emissions will result in the continued changes in climate, which will leave us with consequences that (will) haunt humanity until the end of time (Garnaut, 2008, 597). In his novel A New Green History of the World (2005), Ponting asserts that global warming will exacerbate a multitude of environmental problems, including large-scale water shortages, soil erosion and loss of biodiversity, as well as have social impacts such as increasing inequalities in the distribution of wealth, income and power. Poverty will prevail and economic prosperity, the environment and our way of life will be threatened (The Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, 2012). Ross Garnaut (2008, xviii) describes climate change as a diabolical policy problem, because the economy rests on the exploitation of fossil fuels. Governments must try to balance electoral gain based on popular, short-term concerns with the longer-term strategies that greening the economy requires. Because this incorporates the eradication of poverty and inequality, creating a green

Sylvia Fogarty-Phipps, 585816 economy that reduces the effects of climate change is an extremely complex and unrealistic development. The complexity of creating a green economy fundamentally resides in the fact that climate change is an issue of equity: not every person contributes equally to climate change, nor will they be equally affected by it (O'Brien and Leichenko, 2010, 162). Economically marginal regions, who are less responsible for contributing to climate change, often face greater sensitivity and exposure to climate change, and have a significantly lower adaptive capacity than better-off regions (OBrien and Liechenko, 2010, 169). On the other hand, developed nations are less vulnerable and more adaptive, and also more responsible for effects of climate change. Thus responsibility for contributing to climate change and the effects of climate change are unequally distributed. It is unfair to demand that the poorest countries and people in the world should forgo the benefits that the first world has enjoyed whilst also destroying the environment. In a green economy, equity is paramount, and issues such as responsibility for climate change and poverty are eradicated. Half of the worlds population lives on less than two dollars a day (Ponting, 2007), and the transformation to a green economy aims to narrow and eventually remove the gap between the rich and the poor. However eradicating poverty is not a simple task, as the world has limited resources, and inequality is deeply engrained in the history of humanity.

Human progress, industrialization and affluence have come at the price of environmental degradation, biodiversity loss, exploitation, poverty and human

Sylvia Fogarty-Phipps, 585816 suffering (Ponting, 2007, 198). Charlton (2011) argues in his essay, Man-Made World: Choosing Between Progress and Planet, that this is a paradox of human history; that in striving for the benefits of progress, we destroy our planet. The environmental problems now facing the world are deeply rooted in human history (Ponting, 2007, 417). The switch from renewable energy sources to the exploitation of the earths limited fossil fuels occurred in the early seventeenth century, beginning with the burning of coal. How can we change a society that since 1500 has relied on economic growth based on inequality? The problem with eliminating inequality and global poverty is that the earth cannot sustain millions more people living at a higher standard of living. The Global Footprint Network calculate that we are extracting resources from land and sea at twice the rate they are naturally replenished, and thus we are eating into our future (Charlton, 2011). Lifting everyone in the world onto an income of around $3 per day with prevailing levels of global inequality would require the natural resources equivalent to 15 planets like Earth (Woodward & Simms, 2006). It is therefore impossible to transform to a green economy, as eradicating global poverty will disrupt the balance between increasing demands and limited resources.

Population growth has put further strain on the environment. In the last 250 years, population has increased seven-fold, which has had profound effects on the environment (Ponting, 2007, 231). Population is expected to continue to increase, as Malthus principle on population (1978) shows that population will rise exponentially if unchecked by death or restraint. More people means more mouths

Sylvia Fogarty-Phipps, 585816 to feed, and thus agriculture has transformed to produce higher levels of output, as seen with the development of the Green Revolution after WW2 (Ponting, 2007). High input farming methods, which rely on artificial fertilizers and pesticides, and new high yield crop varieties have been embraced to increase food production. However modern agricultural production is highly energy inefficient, as shown in the case of the US where agriculture now consumes more energy than it produces (Ponting, 2007, 243). The need to harvest more land and intensify production of food has produced numerous environmental problems, including deforestation, soil erosion, desertification, salinization and the pollutant of land with pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers (Ponting, 2007, 264). In our world today there is no shortage of food, only maldistribution, which results in the death of 40 million people each year (Ponting, 2007). However it is estimated that by 2050, world population will reach 9.3 billion (Charlton, 2011), and as standards of living increase, the environment will be put under further strain.

Another issue rendering the possibility of an entirely green economy is the role that climate change sceptics and governments play. Politicians choose to prioritise economic growth, especially after the wake of the Global Financial Crisis in 2008. Climate change scepticism was introduced after the release of The Limits to Growth (Meadows et al., 1972), a novel that forecasted the collapse of society as we reached our ecological limits within one hundred years. Branded as pessimistic and ignored by governments, the controversial novel fuelled the climate change denial industry. Sceptics are motivated by short-term economic interests rather than the well being

Sylvia Fogarty-Phipps, 585816 of future generations. It is inconvenient for them to believe that climate change is real, as they do not wish to modify their lifestyle. While the UNEPs report Towards a Green Economy (2011) stresses that overall growth indexes and profits could be even bigger with a green economy, Lander rejects this idea, claiming the report is a wolf in sheeps clothing (Lander, 2011, 1). He argues that the proposals outlined in the report are unrealistic and purely idealistic, as it completely ignores contemporary geopolitical realities (Lander, 2011, 10) and it therefore has no hope of making a significant contribution to the global struggles we face today. The world is dominated by political and economic relationships that make it impossible for this idealistic green economy to be implemented. While social constraints and the unequal distribution of power in the world may make greening the economy implausible, it is technically achievable. Malthus notion that humans would face an inescapable conflict between infinite human progress and finite natural resources (Malthus, 1978) did not take into account the essence of human success; our ability to harness technology to break through the planetary constraints on our progress (Charlton, 2008). There has been extensive research and development (R&D) in new technologies that produce renewable green energy. Hydroelectric and nuclear power serve as the two real alternatives to increased consumption of fossil fuels (Ponting, 2007, 288), as other renewable resources such as wind, wave, geothermal and solar power have not developed on any major scale (Ponting, 2007, 288). With an increasing population, an increase in energy demand, and the need to mitigate climate change, renewable energy has become a major contributor to creating a green economy (Green Economy Report, 2011, 202). Yet

Sylvia Fogarty-Phipps, 585816 the UNEP suggest that investments in R&D of renewable energy need to be significantly enhanced (UNEP, 2011, 202) to stay below a 2C increase in average global temperature. Greening the economy could generate 15 to 60 million additional jobs over the next two decades and lift tens of millions of workers out of poverty, according to the report led by the Green Jobs Initiative (Green Economy Coalition, 2011), yet as explored earlier, this is an unrealistic possibility due to the earths limitations. However there are, like all things in life, trade-offs in greening the economy. One question people ask is can we afford this? In the wake of the global financial crisis, many people perceive green economy solutions as expensive (Bapna & Talberth, 2011). Imposing a carbon tax has been heavily criticised in Australia, as it places a short-term burden on citizens (Bishop, 2011). President of the World Resources Institute Manish Bapna asserts there will be short-term losses associated with changes in industry and market structure, including a decline of the coal industry and temporary related job losses (Bapna & Talberth, 2011). Charlton (2011) suggests the goal we should all be focused on is Googles project RE<C (Renewable Energy Cheaper Than Coal). However scientists suggest this unlikely to occur any time soon, due to the lack of funding in R&D, and it is essential that government policies (create incentives to) tip the balance (Levi et al.) and kick start the cleanenergy revolution (Parenti, 2010, 20). A recent report, Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giants (Atkinson et al., 2009), showed that Asian nations are forecast to outspend the US on clean-energy technology and infrastructure by a factor of 3:1 by 2013 (Atkinson et al., 2009, 103). Another deterrent in greening economy are the risks

Sylvia Fogarty-Phipps, 585816 involved in clean-energy technology. For example, nuclear waste cannot be disposed of, it must be dumped somewhere, and there is the risk of nuclear accidents occurring. Furthermore, improving energy efficiency does not necessarily reduce overall consumption, and as Ponting (2007) argues, it indeed tends to increase it. Diamond (2005, 505) also reminds us that we cannot rely on technology and improved energy efficiency to solve our problems, as technology in the past has also created many problems, such as the invention of CFCs and motor vehicles. However we must weigh up these risks and costs with the catastrophic impact climate change will have on our environment and our future generations. Delay in taking action to reduce the effects of climate change is only causing further damage to our environment.

Many people are already working towards a greener economy, and while an entirely green global economy may not be feasible, there are certainly steps that can be taken to improve the global standard of living while simultaneously addressing intergenerational equity and sustainable development. Some nations have ratified the Kyoto Protocol, or implemented a tax on carbon. Yet these steps alone will not bring about a green economy, and as the UNEPs report suggests, moving towards a green economy must become a strategic economic policy agenda for achieving sustainable development (UNEP, 2011, 21). Discussion on ways to mitigate climate change has been facilitated through international meetings such as the Copenhagen Climate Conference in 2011 (Charlton, 2011). However as Charlton argues, issues of equity have prevented these forums from producing real action from being taken,

Sylvia Fogarty-Phipps, 585816 and they have failed due to the inevitable conflict between progress and planet (Charlton, 2011). On June 20th 2012 world leaders will meet in Rio De Janeiro, Brazil, to discuss the transition to a green economy (Anderson, 2012). The Rio+20 Conference is based on the prior world meeting in 1992, where leaders of the world signed the Earth Charter, as well as other international environmental agreements including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), aiming to develop sustainably and reduce global inequality (Sari, 2011). There is much hope that this meeting will bring about global commitment to greening the economy, however as Pearce and colleagues (1989), Diamond (2005), Lander (2011), Brand (2011) and many other environmentalist scientists and economists argue, this is false hope, as fully greening the economy is impossible.

The dominant neoliberal ideology in society today prioritizes economic growth and promotes mass consumption. Yet it also strives for technological innovation, and this is key to creating a green economy. Increasing collaboration between environmental scientists, ecologists and economists will be required (to mitigate climate change) (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). Many countries now enjoy a high quality of life, but at the cost of a large ecological footprint (UNEP, 2011, 21). The creation of a green economy is technically possible, however some doubt its necessity. Ponting (2007, 423) claims it is too early to judge whether modern industrialized societies are environmentally sustainable. In contrast, Diamond (2005, 486) argues that we are already living beyond our means, and are currently rapidly advancing along (a) non-sustainable course. While he supports

Sylvia Fogarty-Phipps, 585816 the notion of establishing a green economy, he also suggests it is not entirely necessary (Diamond, 2005). Like Australian scientist Tim Flannery, Diamond supports Lovelocks Gaia Hypothosis, which predicts that if we fail to take care of the earth, it will surely take care of itself by making us no longer welcome (Lovelock in Charlton, 2011). This romantic view contrasts to optimists belief that the power of human progress will save us from collapse. Yet greening the economy is an impossibility, because it is a model that ties itself with poverty eradication and that continues to pursue the false idea of limitless economic growth in a world that has limits (Guest author, 2012).

References and bibliography: Adger, W., Paavola, J., Huq, S. and Mace, M. (eds.). (2006), Fairness in Adaptation to Climate Change, MIT Press, Cambridge MA, pp. 3-708, 727 pgs. Anderson, V. (15th April 2012, Rio 2012: Possible pathway to a green economy? (online), The Guardian, viewed 11th June 2012, <http://www.greeneconomycoalition.org/know-how/rio-2012-possible-pathwaygreen-economy>. Atkinson, R., Shellenberger, M., Nordhaus, T., Swezey, D., et al. (2009), Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant: Asian nations set to dominate the clean energy race by outinvesting the US, Breakthrough Institute and the Information Technology and Innovation Fund, pp. 1-129. Bapna, M. & Talberth. J (2011), Q&A: What is a Green Economy?, World Resources Institute, viewed 7th June 2012, <http://www.wri.org/stories/2011/04/qa-whatgreen-economy>. Bishop, J. (9th March 2011), What the government does not tell you, Opinion National Times, Fairfax Media 2012, The Sydney Morning Herald, Sydney, viewed 12th March 2011, <http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/blogs/the-bishopsgambit/what-the-government-does-not-tell-you-20110309-1bmuv.html>. Brand, U. (2012). Green Economy - the Next Oxymoron? No Lessons Learned from

Sylvia Fogarty-Phipps, 585816 Failures of Implementing Sustainable Development. GAIA: Ecological Perspectives For Science & Society, 21(1), pp. 28-32. Charlton A. (November 2011). Man-Made World: Choosing between progress and planet, Quarterly Essay, No. 44, pp. 6-19. Dalby, S. (2009), Security and Environmental Change. Polity Press, Cambridge. Diamond J. (2005). Collapse: How societies choose to fail or survive. United States of America: Viking Penguin, pp. 358-515. Dryzek, J., Norgaard, R. and Schlosberg, D. (eds.). (2011), The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford University Press: Oxford. Garnaut, R. (2008), Climate Change Review, Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2011. Global Transition (2012), Earth Summit Rio June 2012, viewed 11th June 2012, <http://globaltransition2012.org/>. Green Economy Coalition (2011), 9 Principles of a Green Economy (online), viewed 7th June 2012, <http://www.greeneconomycoalition.org/updates/sign-9-principlesgreen-economy>. Guest author (2012), Alternatives to a Green Economy From Bolivian Civil Society (online), viewed 13th June 2012, <http://globaltransition2012.org/2012/05/alternatives-to-the-green-economyfrom-bolivian-civil-society/>. Gurtowski, S. (2011). Green Economy Idea - Limits, Perspectives, Implications. Problemy Ekorozwoju, 6(1), 75-82. Jenkins, T. & Simms, A. (2012), Paper 1: The Green Economy, Global Transition, pp. 1-10. Lander, E. (2011), The Green Economy: the Wolf in Sheeps Clothing, translated by Wilson, K., Transnational Institute, viewed 11th June 2012, <www.tni.org>, pp. 1-10. Levi, M., Economy, E., O'Neil, S., & Segal, A. (n.d). Globalizing the Energy Revolution How to Really Win the Clean-Energy Race. Foreign Affairs, 89(6), 111-+. Malthus, T. (1978), An Essay on the Principle of Population as it affects the Future Improvement of Society with remarks on the Speculations of Mr. Godwin, M. Condorcet, and Other Writers., J. Johnson, London, Chapters 1-2. McNiell, J.R. Something new under the sun: An environmental history of the

Sylvia Fogarty-Phipps, 585816 twentieth-century world (An excerpt), viewed 22nd January 2008, <http://www.wwnorton.com/catalog/spring01/somethingx.htm>. Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D.L., Randers, J., Behrens III, W.W (1972), The Limits To Growth, Universe Books, New York. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005), Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, D.C. O'Brien, K. and Leichenko, R. (2010), Global Environmental Change. Equity, and Human Security, in Matthew, R., Barnett, J., McDonald, B. and O'Brien, K.(eds.), MIT Press, Cambridge MA: 157-176. Parenti, C. (2010). The Big Green Buy How Obama can use the government's purchasing power to spark the clean-energy revolution. Nation, 291(5-6), 15-+. Paterson, M. (2000), Understanding Global Environmental Politics: Domination, Accumulation, Resistance. St. Martins Press, New York. Pearce et al. (1989) Blueprint for a Green Economy, Earthscan Publications, London, UK. Ponting C. (2007). A new green history of the world: The environment and the collapse of great civilisations. (Rev.ed.). London: Vintage, pp. 87-115. Sachs, W. (1999), Planet dialectics: Explorations in environment and development, London: Zed Books. Sari, A. (14th October 2011), A green economy: is it possible? (online), The Jakarta Post, < http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/10/14/a-green-economy-is-itpossible.html>. The Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency (19th January 2012), Shaping a Global Solution, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, viewed 8th March 2012, <http://www.climatechange.gov.au/government/international.aspx>. The Telegraph (11th June 2012), Green economy possible with political will (online), viewed 11th June 2012, <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/earth/the-age-ofenergy/8818057/Green-economy-political-will.html>. UN DESA(United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs). 2011. The great green technological transformation. World economic and social survey. New York: UN DESA.

Sylvia Fogarty-Phipps, 585816 UNEP (United Nations Environment Program) (2012), Green Economy (online), viewed 7th June 2012, <http://www.unep.org/greeneconomy/>. UNEP (United Nations Environment Program) (December 2011) Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication, Nairobi, UNEP, pp. 1-631. Woodward, D. & Simms, A. (2006) Growth Isnt Working: the Unequal Distribution of the Benefits and Costs of Global Growth, London.