Comments due by April17, 2015
When it comes to economic growth these days, people often point out that it must be sustainable or "green growth." To what extent is a combination of economic growth and sustainability really possible?
With its Energiewende, the energy transition policy from nuclear to renewable energies, Germany aims to gradually increase renewable energies like solar, wind and hydroelectric power. Some say it's an important step towards a more sustainable lifestyle. But not Karl-Heinz Paque.
"If we do these things in Germany, it's not really going to have much of a global impact. We're too small for that," Paque, a professor of economics at the University of Magdeburg, told DW. "It's going to be decisive what happens in those countries that are now trying to catch up on economic growth - and they make up two-thirds of the global population."
Should developing countries and emerging economies follow the path Europe took? For centuries, Europeans fostered their own economic growth and wealth, before discovering their heart for environmental protection.
"If we do these things in Germany, it's not really going to have much of a global impact. We're too small for that," Paque, a professor of economics at the University of Magdeburg, told DW. "It's going to be decisive what happens in those countries that are now trying to catch up on economic growth - and they make up two-thirds of the global population."
Should developing countries and emerging economies follow the path Europe took? For centuries, Europeans fostered their own economic growth and wealth, before discovering their heart for environmental protection.
"Environmental protection as a priority stems from affluence," Paque said. "For us, it only started in the 1970s, no earlier. In China, it's only just beginning, and it will take a little longer in India."
Comeback for coal
There is much to make affluent and environmentally active Europeans nervous. Across the world, coal - the energy source that in most European countries has a reputation as being particularly dirty - is booming.
"Coal is about to enjoy the biggest renaissance in the history of economics," said Ottmar Edenhofer, deputy director and head economist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.
In the 1990s, many countries substituted coal with gas. But this trend is now being reversed, since coal has become "incredibly competitive," Edenhofer said.
In the 1990s, many countries substituted coal with gas. But this trend is now being reversed, since coal has become "incredibly competitive," Edenhofer said.
Attempts to limit greenhouse gas emissions internationally have been unsuccesfull
"Above all, China's economic growth is strongly powered by cheap coal. The same holds true for India, South Africa, as well as some Eastern European countries," he added.
When coal or other fossil fuels are burned, CO2 is emitted, polluting the atmosphere - and contributing to making climate change more likely. Projections by the International Energy Agency (IEA) say that annual medium temperatures could rise 5.3 degrees by the end of the century, if countries across the world don't take action.
But negotiations towards a new international agreement on climate protection have been a failure. Whether it's about limiting greenhouse gas emissions or agreeing on emission rights trading, the interests of the various countries are simply too different.
Devaluing resources
"A global climate agreement would probably lead to a reduction of coal and oil consumption," said Carl Christian von Weizsäcker of the Bonn-based Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
That, in turn constitutes a problem for countries with large fossil fuel resources. "A climate agreement would lead to decreasing prices for the resources in these countries," Weizsäcker said. "That makes it even harder to reach an agreement."
That, in turn constitutes a problem for countries with large fossil fuel resources. "A climate agreement would lead to decreasing prices for the resources in these countries," Weizsäcker said. "That makes it even harder to reach an agreement."
To complicate things further, some countries are changing their negotiation positions. Since new oil and gas fields were discovered in Kenya, and Canada found ways to make tar sands exploitation more lucrative, these countries have practically lost interest in a achieving climate agreement; Any limitation to pollution would reduce the value of their resources.
After the failure of the UN climate talks in Copenhagen in 2009, the chances of reaching a quick agreement are slim, many experts fear. And it's even more unlikely to expect countries to agree to less, or no, economic growth. Even so, many environmental activists in western industrial nations dream of a world in which economic growth is unnecessary.
Improvements without growth?
From a global perspective, zero-percent economic growth is not a serious option.
"The huge disparities, for instance between Africa and Europe, or between Africa and the Americas would be not acceptable," Ottmar Edenhofer said, referring to calculations he undertook for the Potsdam Institute on Climate Impact Research.
"The huge disparities, for instance between Africa and Europe, or between Africa and the Americas would be not acceptable," Ottmar Edenhofer said, referring to calculations he undertook for the Potsdam Institute on Climate Impact Research.
Few, if any, countries in the world are likely to agree to limit their own economic growth
"For Africa to reach living standards similar to those in Latin America, the United States would have to reduce its per capita incomes by 80 percent," he said. "Resulting social conflicts would be severe."
Thus, it seems unlikely there will be a conscious limit to economic growth, just as it's unlikely universal targets for climate protection will be agreed anytime soon.
Regional efforts, such as the trading of emissions rights within Europe, only work partially or not at all. That's why many experts see humanity steering towards an apocalypse.
Economist Karl-Heinz Paque, however, is cautious when it comes to such scenarios, pointing out that reliable predictions about the future are simply impossible to make.
"Imagine you had made a prediction in 1913, exactly 100 years ago, about the future of the world - but starting from the state of technological development back then," he said. "What has happened since, within less than three generations, would have been completely beyond your imagination. That's why we have to be very careful about our predictions."
"Imagine you had made a prediction in 1913, exactly 100 years ago, about the future of the world - but starting from the state of technological development back then," he said. "What has happened since, within less than three generations, would have been completely beyond your imagination. That's why we have to be very careful about our predictions."
Don't panic, humanity will come up with solutions - that seems to be the bottom line to this argument. Paque, who has been active in politics with the liberal FDP party, believes such technological progress can be reached with as little state regulation as possible.
Yet Gerd Wagner, who heads the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW) in Berlin, argues that regulations set by nation states will indeed be necessary. "If you want to reduce environmental exploitation you need regulations."
A lot of people run a race to see who is fastest. I run to see who has the most guts, who can punish himself into exhausting pace , and then at the end, punish himself even more. See the link below for more info.
ReplyDelete#pace
www.ufgop.org
Humanity will come up with a solution, that is what the experts say. But just as pointed out predictions on the Environment made 100 years ago were very farfetched because of our technological advances. but now is now and not 100 years ago, because we have made such technological advances, because the population is growing at an immense rate these are things that must be predicted ahead of time we are seeing what CO2 emissions have done to the Environment. saying that we will fix our problems in the near future is not good enough.We need to agree on an environmental protection program before it is too late!
DeleteBy:Yeison Gomezzarzuela
As stated, it has taken about 40 years for a well developed country; Germany to begin its adaption to put a strong focus on a Environmental economy. This questions other countries progression to be more environmentally friendly, countries that would struggle such as India, China and Egypt. It's unsettling to read about the coal industry booming across Europe as this is not progression in the increase use of renewable energy sources, its a huge step back. The continuous use of coal as a main energy source is placing more CO2 into the air in the worst possible time because of the United Nations Environment program to reach a certain level of emissions. This is why i do believe Gerd Wagner is correct when he states "If you want to reduce environmental exploitation you need regulations." Governments need a firmer hand to enforce environmental regulations before continuing to take steps back from reaching their environmental goals. We continually wait for 'humanity' to 'come up with solutions'.
ReplyDeleteLike the post explains, small countries as Germany, are not the ones that will make the enormous difference, but the bigger countries will. Bigger countries with bigger environmental problems such as India and China are the ones that should be running to find solutions and ways to cut their effects to the environment. Another topic discussed in the post is how European countries are now getting interested in the use of coal again, which this means a crazy action to the environment. The use of coal again will cause a step forward to all the effort that countries are putting to fight the environmental crisis the world is having. In my opinion solutions will not just come from the sky. I think is time that every country realize how big is the damage they are making to the environment so they can put regulations to make a faster a better improvement to the environment.
ReplyDeleteIn order to keep the balance between economic growth and environment, people should do something to sustainable development, that is to say satisfying the need of the current generation, and do something not harm to the next generations. In other words, it refers to the coordinated development of economy, society, resources and environmental protection, to achieve the purpose of developing the economy. What’s more, people also should protect the atmosphere, fresh water, sea, land and forests and other natural resources, to make sure the next generations can be sustainable development, live and work. The core of sustainable development is development, to realize economic and social development which under the protection of resources and environment sustainable utilization. Since the policy of reform and opening up, China's economy continued rapid growth. However, in the process of rapid economic development, extensive growth mode with high investment, high energy consumption, high emission, which has brought bad influences on resource and environment, China frequently uses coal or other fossil fuels, when coal or other fossil fuels are burned, CO2 is emitted, polluting the atmosphere, and contributing to making climate change more likely living environment becomes worse, increase social health costs. If people want to reduce environmental exploitation people should need regulations.
ReplyDeleteClearly, there needs to be a fine balance between the economic growth and sustainability. I believe that this balance is dependent on each country. This will depend on whether the country is a developing or emerging country, the amount of resources in a country, and other factors. The route that Europe took before discovering their heart for environmental protection may not be the best route for another place. As Karl-Heinz Paque stated, "Imagine you had made a prediction in 1913, exactly 100 years ago, about the future of the world - but starting from the state of technological development back then." Therefore, I believe that we should take everything one step at a time but take careful steps without losing discouragement because there’s always hope for technology advancement in the future that would guide country through this process. We will find a way.
ReplyDeleteIt will be true to think about the renewable energies for the sake of the environment. The sustainable life style and renewable energy use will be good for all of us. I see that some countries try to make use of nuclear energy but it is important to consider the results of using nuclear energy. We need clean and renewable energy type to be sustainable. In that sense, I appreciate the new method of Germany to create renewable energy model to save the planet.
ReplyDeleteIt is true that European improve their economy before understanding their heart for environmental protection. The earth has witnessed the use of coal for centuries but in 1990s the countries substitutes coal with gas but it is reversed now because it becomes incredibly competitive. It will be true to note that the economic growth of China is powered through cheap coal. The same holds true for India, South Africa and Eastern European countries.
I believe in the necessity of renewable energy. And people need to limit themselves in energy use. I think that people need to be careful with their energy use a lot. It is seen that people need to be careful with energy use. It will be good for them to consume less. I always warn people about the use of resources. We should all be aware that our resources are limited.
I do think economic and environmental systems can work in harmony - the very nature of green economics. Finding this harmony will be very hard, resulting in a shifting paradigm within our political and economic institutions. Any drastic change in regulatory authority within our government has been met with resistance from at least one side of the isle. I personally find it hard to believe that any substantial change in our relationship from the natural world will come from the 'free' market place. I think this argument is based more in political ideology than anything else, not to say that I disagree with this ideology, only that it is not practical to solve the massive problem of ACD. Energy sources that are still plentiful - natural gas and oil - that are institutionalized will continue to be cheaper then localized and renewable sources. Only when a nation-state creates economic incentives for these alternative sources can the marketplace make a more balanced competition. Finding the balance between Liberty and sustainability will be the most difficult challenge for America, but like the generations before us, we will not find quick solutions that expel us of our freedoms. The solutions will take time and effort, even if at the brunt of developing nations. I think this fact is often overlooked; America already oppresses the other developing nations by our tremendous consumption of natural resources. Chances are moving into the future this will not change. Climate change effects the developing world more then the developed world. By the time our political system finds compromise about these issues, it will be to late for the billions living in poverty in developing nations.
ReplyDeleteIn the world we live in today, just about every country is connected in some way especially economically. If a country decides to reinvent themselves by being more environmentally conscious and use alternative resources and methods of production, this will of course affect all countries they do business with unless they change as well. There is truly no way for every country to start from scratch and a clean slate together because of major differences that have and always will exist. Some nations are more affluent than others therefore can afford to take more risks than others. I truly believe that for one nation to prosper or advance another often must move in the opposite direction. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't slowly plug away at the problem together whenever possible, but the whole world will never be on the same page.
ReplyDeleteIn order to find a balance between economic growth and environment, bigger countries such as India and China will need to focus on becoming sustainable. Germany is heading in the right direction with their new method of creating renewable energy. Energy sources are limited and they need to be utilized responsibly. It is important to keep in mind that every little bit of sustainable and renewable energy counts towards a greener economy. It is a difficult challenge but it should be recognized and dealt with by each country accordingly. Also, the idea of using coal again would be a horrible decision which will negatively affect the environment.
ReplyDeleteThe United States of America has been supporting and encouraging the practice of green development for at least the past 15-20 years. I remember being a young girl and disposing of all garbage in the same container. It wasn’t until the early 1980’s that my parents started separating plastic and paper. I remember having three containers, one for plastic, and another for regular garbage, and a third for newspapers and brown paper bags. These containers were distributed to all residents by the community advocates free of charge. But what happened that these recycling changes were suddenly taking place at home? Simply, the local governments started initiating fines for failing to put into effect the recycling regulations issued by the local authorities. Clearly, the concept of green growth begins at home, our U.S. of America. Possibly, as the article mentioned, one answer is the entering into global agreements with other nations in the hope that most nations seek a global green path, but it is too early to determine any successful outcome as this is a time-consuming process. In the interim, regulations seem to be the primary, and most effective path to achieving a sustainable green environment. This is done through supervision by local authorities, not only among residential communities, but largely, by targeting industrial and commercial agents who tend to be the top contributors and pollutants of environments in the home front and on a global basis. Just like the fines that were issued to home owners for failing to recycle when I was a child, so must governments throughout the world penalize the contributors in order to mitigate greenhouse emissions despite any economic growth brought about from the burning of coal and/or other fossil fuels certain countries may be experiencing.
ReplyDeleteTo find a balance between the economy and the environment, countries with different opinions and beliefs will have to come to an agreement where everyone is pleased. This is as difficult as it seems. The article mentions that "for Africa to reach the same living standards as Latin America, the United States would have to reduce its per capita income by 80%". This would cause major social consequences, not only for the United States but a global impact. However, a global climate agreement would lead to the reduction of coal and oil consumption. Germany believes that implementing environmentally friendly technologies would not make any global impact because of its size. However I think this is wrong. Any country that implements such technology is helping making a greener and better Earth. Every countries government needs to find a healthy balance between economic growth and the environment, whether or not each country agrees with one another or not.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is either sustaining the environment or economic growth in developing countries. Research shows that the United States needs to reduce it per capita income by 80 percent in order for Africa to reach living standards similar to Latin America. Will this happen? I do not think we will ever see this happen. This will result in social conflict would be severe. There needs to be equilibrium in finding a solution that fits all. It is also frightening to now that we are taking steps back in reforming our climate change. Throughout Europe they are using coal as one of their main sources of energy. It is unsettling to know that there are no regulations limiting the emission in the environment. Reading all these articles makes me doubtful that nothing is going to be done or recognized until it is to late to do so. We need to start with ourselves, by being less ignorant to these cases, and being careful with the amount of energy we are wasting.
ReplyDeleteThis is an incredibly hard problem to solve - making our planet more sustainable for the future, while keeping up with economic growth. Suggesting that economic growth could stop in favor of the environment is silly - especially in environments that it more that ever such as Africa. What needs to happen is more of a compromise, where both work hand in hand. For the short term to reach at least some steady level of economic growth, un-envionrmentally friendly routes may have to be taken (Such as oil), however there are still things for the environment that can be done. Cutting down our use of energy and our waste is a major first step for our environment, which can occur regardless of the circumstances.
ReplyDeleteOf course reliable predictions about the future are impossible to make. We do not know what will truly happen until that time comes, but we definitely have the research and knowledge to produce a reasonable idea as to what may happen in the near future in terms of a sustainable green economy. Professor Paque does raise a legitimate point that Germany is a small country and small countries will not make a huge impact on the environmental crisis we are currently in. However, when neighboring countries see the effort that is being made, they too may initiate a green economy initiative. One cannot make a impact, but collectively we can work together to turn around our environmental conditions and flourish as a global sustainable, green economy. As we have seen in the past blogs, countries are working together to try to combat the environmental issues. For example, the November 2014 deal between China and the United States to cut emissions by 2030. Two powerful countries like China and U.S. are setting the precedent for major countries in sustainable energy. Let’s just hope that the deal can prove to be effective and true in the end. But, its the future. It is simply unpredictable.
ReplyDeleteEfforts towards a greener economy are steps that must be made within a long process that will lead to a better future for our earth and its people. Because of the time consuming nature of this process, there are many skeptics that doubt the attainability of this goal of developing a “greener” economy.
ReplyDeleteWith the goal in mind, one must also recognize that given the nature of some areas, it may seem more beneficial to developing areas to foster their own economic growth and stability before considering the global perspective in this effort towards a green economy. After all, the global initiative to work towards a greener economy is relatively new to even the most developed areas.
The issue then lies within the repercussions of individual areas fostering only their own economic wellbeing. China, as an area that depends on the cheap prices of coal to support a bulk of their economic stability, is less likely to agree on the terms of global initiatives, which would enforce a more green use of resources.
Those educated on this issue, such as Karl-Heinz Paque, have a more theoretical approach to the solution of this issue regarding areas not agreeing to commit to the global efforts towards a greener economy. Karl, along with others, acknowledges that future predictions are hard to make because of the unpredictable nature of humans and their impacts. Essentially, the text suggests that humans will “come up with solutions” as time goes on and the efforts expand.
Because of pollution, we try to imagine a world of non-polluting alternative energy (solar wind ), but these are insignificant compared with the energy needs of our industries and 7 billion people on earth . The only solution is to reduce the number of people in the world as well as stopping the rampant consumer goods, often useless , and our individual energy consumption. But our capitalist economies can be only sustained if there is maintenance of a constant growth which also involves the growth of all outputs and therefore also that of demography.
ReplyDeleteThe environment made us. It deserves something back. There are many millions more living beings out there than there are human beings, and we are responsible for them as well as ourselves. Let alone the millions and millions of galaxies around us. The economy may shape our individual parts of this planet, but the environment controls how we survive as a planet, as an ecosystem. It is our duty to sustain it as it has sustained our lives.
ReplyDeleteThe environment supports all life on Earth, and it provides all natural resources, which allows life for humans, who created and sustain the world's economy. The economy only supports man's need to control the environment's resources, hence without the environment man would perish and with it, so would the economy.
Entropy is a key term within Thermodynamics. As the first law states, energy can be transformed and transferred. In the second law, essentially "entropy", to put it simply, is not simple. For the purpose of this debate, the effect entropy has on energy systems is irreversible. Once heat is transferred or made from burning coal (as an example), the resource is gone, not sustainable (like corn or biodiesel), creates pollutants the harm the ecosystem (which includes humans), and costs the consumer a fine. Humans are being fine to use a necessary pollutant that is finite and becoming obsolete. As humans innovate they create a need for resource use that outweighs resources available. This is a system, which begins with a deficit and by no means positive to any economist.