Green economy
Fairness implies recognizing global and country level equity dimensions, particularly in assuring a Just Transition to an economy that is low-carbon, resource efficient, and socially inclusive.
[7] Green sticker and ecolabel practices have emerged as consumer facing indicators of friendliness to the environment and sustainable development.
They focus on economic sectors like forestry, farming, mining or fishing, among others; concentrate on environmental factors like protecting water sources and biodiversity, or reducing greenhouse gas emissions; support social protections and workers' rights; and home in on specific parts of production processes.
Many non-governmental organisations, governments, banks, companies and so forth have started to claim the right to Define and defend biodiversity and in a distinctly neoliberal manner that subjects the concept's social, political, and ecological dimensions to their value as determined by capitalist markets.
Or, it can be viewed as Marxist economics with nature represented as a form of Lumpenproletariat, an exploited base of non-human workers providing surplus value to the human economy, or as a branch of neoclassical economics in which the price of life for developing vs. developed nations is held steady at a ratio reflecting a balance of power and that of non-human life is very low.
[citation needed] An increasing commitment by the UNEP (and national governments such as the UK) to the ideas of natural capital and full cost accounting under the banner 'green economy' could blur distinctions between the schools and redefine them all as variations of "green economics".
The principles refer to focusing financing on the transition to net zero carbon economies, while keeping socioeconomic effects in mind, along with policy engagement and plans for inclusion and gender equality, all aiming to deliver long-term economic transformation.
Approximately 57% of businesses responding to a survey are investing in energy efficiency, 64% in reducing and recycling trash, and 32% in new, less polluting industries and technologies.
[39] The Bush administration passed the 2005 Energy Bill that granted the nuclear industry around 10 million dollars to encourage research and development efforts.
The controversial nature of nuclear power has the potential to split the green economy movement into two branches— anti-nuclear and pro-nuclear.
According to a European climate survey, 63% of EU residents, 59% of Britons, 50% of Americans and 60% of Chinese respondents are in favor of switching to renewable energy.
[43][44] External variables, such as consumer pressure and energy taxes, are more relevant than firm-level features, such as size and age, in influencing the quality of green management practices.
[45][46][47] A number of organisations and individuals have criticised aspects of the 'Green Economy', particularly the mainstream conceptions of it based on using price mechanisms to protect nature, arguing that this will extend corporate control into new areas from forestry to water.
Venezuelan professor Edgardo Lander says that the UNEP's report, Towards a Green Economy,[48] while well-intentioned "ignores the fact that the capacity of existing political systems to establish regulations and restrictions to the free operation of the markets – even when a large majority of the population call for them – is seriously limited by the political and financial power of the corporations.
"[49] Ulrich Hoffmann, in a paper for UNCTAD also says that the focus on Green Economy and "green growth" in particular, "based on an evolutionary (and often reductionist) approach will not be sufficient to cope with the complexities of [[climate change]]" and "may rather give much false hope and excuses to do nothing really fundamental that can bring about a U-turn of global greenhouse gas emissions.
