The concept of a green economy has gained currency in the recent past as the world has been searching for solutions to multiple global challenges. But this concept and its relationships with other related concepts have not been clearly articulated. This has invited repeated questions on exactly what is meant by a green economy even from people who have, in principle, embraced the concept. The lack of clarity has also brought into question whether this is yet another device to limit the space for developing countries to achieve development and poverty reduction (Fulai, 2010). As such, some countries such as Egypt and Argentina are still in the debate on the definition. Its relationship with sustainable development is incoherent; is it a new thing or a paradigm change from sustainable development? These are some of the questions that form the basis for critique of the concept. 

According to Gilbert and Miller (2011), green economy initiative prioritizes economic growth over social justice and ecology; at best, it hopes to harmonize them. It argues that the green shift is both necessary for humanity and profitable for businesses.  Green economy concept claim that it will:

• Reduce the human ecological footprint 50 percent by 2050;
• Develop renewable energy sources;
• Be an engine of economic growth;
• Prove vital for the elimination of world poverty through green job generation;
• Ensure social justice;
• Make up the huge shortfall in climate funds to poor countries;
• And save the environment.

All at once! The critique of the green economy concept emanates from the observation that it is impractical to achieve all the goals simultaneously. In addition to woefully insufficient government aid and World Bank loans, countries and landowners would get income from carbon credits through REDD for forest preservation, land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) for land uses, and payment for ecosystem services (PES) for other ecosystem services. Understanding the value of our environment, even in dollar terms, is not the same as having global commons (air, water, land, forest) become commodities sold as carbon credits. Carbon trading is very different from the “green accounting” of environmental impacts recommended by The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity[1] (TEEB).

Despite good intentions, the details of the green economy Initiative are full of loopholes fought for by various interests. Both LULUCF and REDD have such problems: REDD payment to “forest landholders” ignores indigenous peoples, peasants and others who cannot prove legal title to the land. The current text permits logging, gives credits for wood products, defines monoculture tree plantations as “forest”, and exempts draining peatlands and climate-caused forest fires from REDD accounting. REDD must specifically include the free prior and informed consent of forest dwellers, peasants and indigenous peoples as specified in the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Already, such people have been evicted by security forces in numerous places. LULUCF defines inhabited savannah as “marginal”, allowing bio-char, ethanol plantations, and GMO mega-projects, and ignoring the rights of local people who practice dryland farming. This allows land grabs and dispossession, which are already happening on a grand scale (Gilbert and Miller, 2011). The question is; will such like initiatives that infringe on the rights of vulnerable groups pass for the green economy?

Some skeptics of the green economy concept, such as Bolivia and Venezuela, go to the extreme. They claim that the green economy is equivalent to ‘green capitalism’ which intends to transform nature into commodities to be traded under the mercantilist model leaving environment sustainability aside. Green capitalism proponents argue that because fossil fuels and most other natural resources are limited and dwindling, the economy will inevitably run up against shortages. As resources become scarcer and therefore more expensive, all businesses will have to figure out how to do more with less. The upside, green capitalism tells us, is that using fewer resources—energy, raw materials, water—is good not only for the planet but also for profits. The less a company spends on inputs and the more efficiently it runs its operations, the heftier its margins will be; being ecologically prudent might be a way to boost the bottom line (Rogers, 2010). As such the concern is not for the environment and social welfare per se but the economic gains to corporates.

A detailed read on the criticism of green economy is the 10 Theses of a critique of the Green Economy.

Although the critique of green economy has some basis, my personal opinion is that the concept is pertinent if we are to achieve sustainable development goals. I appreciate that green capitalism also present some pertinent social issues. I believe that some of the issues could be addressed to make the concept less controversial.

***************************************************************************************** 

[1] The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) study is an international initiative to draw attention to the global economic benefits of biodiversity Its objective is to highlight the growing cost of biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation and to draw together expertise from the fields of science, economics and policy to enable practical actions