Green Economy

Green Economy Solomon and Krishna (2011) discuss what they see as a coming transition to sustainable energy sources. Hydrocarbons are a finite energy source away from which human society will have to transition. They note that historical energy transitions take over a century or more to enact, and are stimulated by resource scarcity and the attendant problems thereof.

In their study, they use academic discussions of prior research on different energy transitions, first from wood to fossil fuels, and then they provide case evidence from individual countries that have transitioned away from fossil fuels. In their study, they seek to provide lessons for researchers and practitioners alike with respect to how these lessons can be applied to our current need to transition away from fossil fuels. The authors mostly focus on these recent examples, and but this does not strengthen their argument.

They use some primary source data, but the problem with this approach is that these are incomplete transitions and the data does not necessary represent a complete sample size. So there are some flaws that undermine the article, but rhetorically the authors are credible in that they are trying to work with what little data we have on transitioning away from fossil fuels. They do reflect that there are challenges.

While it might be difficult to extrapolate these to a global shift, they do provide analysis of what little experience we do have. Newell and Mulvaney (2013) approach the issue of a greener energy future from a quasi-moral perspective. They argue that the energy transition is related to issues of equity and justice. The authors do not make their points clear. One thing they do mention is that they seek to analyze the political trade-offs that exist when seeking a just energy transition.

Their work is hard to follow, and entirely unconvincing because of this. Clarity is not served with phrasing like "the immensely difficult political trade-offs," burdened by a pair of superfluous adjectives. Conceptually, they do not define this just transition. Even if the UN is the agency proposing it, either the UN has a definition and the authors omitted it, or the UN lacks one and the authors failed in their critique. They noted that the term 'just transition' arises in several different sources, but never get around to defining it.

When you introduce a philosophical concept like justice, you need to bring some philosophical chops to the discussion and it is clear that neither author has the background necessary to seriously tackled the issue of justice. Their shotgun approach to rhetoric grazes some key issues, for example intergenerational challenges, and the challenges posed by the highly stratified access to energy that already exists in this world. Their attempts to discuss "just transition" actually do highlight one thing -- the absurdity of the concept itself.

In a more satirical concept, they'd have written a triumph. There is no body, person, agency or corporation that defines and adjudicates the concept of justice globally, not with respect to energy. There are millions of individual conflicts and trade-offs that would make the pursuit of such justice near impossible to execute even with a coordinated plan, and nothing of that sort exists.

But in their approach they miss the moral hazard posed by success in creating this just transition -- the better conditions for life we create, the more life will thrive, creating more challenges with respect to creating better conditions. Kemp and Parto (2005) seek to define sustainability. Their definition is thus: "sustainability is best viewed as a socially-instituted process of adaptive change in which innovation is a necessary element." This, of course, is the exact opposite of sustainability.

It takes a fantastic amount of cognitive dissonance to think that infinite progress is sustainable in a finite world. Humanity existed in a sustainable fashion before we burned fossil fuels. We had a small population, made almost no lasting impact on our planet and with the exception of the occasional great auk or passenger pigeon we used up precious few resources. I appreciate the value of innovation -- it improves lives -- but it is not a precursor to sustainability.

Our sustainability has been compromised by our innovations that have allowed us to proliferate and use more of the world's finite resources. I am not sure if innovation and progress is mutually exclusive to sustainability -- it's probably not -- but it is certainly not a precursor to it. With such a comprehensive misunderstanding of the key concept of their entire article, these authors blow any chance they had of making a credible argument.

They appear to be working with this idea because that is what people in business and government want to see, the utopia of infinite sustainable growth. Such fundamental errors -- believing in a paradox -- undermine us all. Brand (2012) talks about this paradox…or oxymoron as he terms "green economy." It's not an oxymoron, but I see where he's coming from. Brand points out that green economy strategies come with a high risk of failure, stemming from misunderstanding of constraints.

The dominant paradigm, he argues, begins with and assumes the maintenance of the "globalization of resource-intensive Western production and consumption patterns." His four major constraints are all true, and the same people trying to implement a "green economy" are the ones with the political agendas, the desire to maintain their elite status,.