GREEN GROWTH IS NOT NECESSARILY GOOD

Sep 25, 2013 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

 

Earlier this year there was a global Global Green Summit which was held in South Korea. The feature speaker at that summit was former President of Guyana, Bharrat Jagdeo.
A number of propositions were made in his presentation. But the focus here is on two, around which much of the present discourse about green development is focused.
The first of these propositions is that inclusive green growth is the only form of growth that makes economic and societal sense. This is a statement that conceals more than it reveals, because it advances very little reasons as to why other forms of economic growth make no sense.
Since the end of the Second World War, various models of economic growth, most of which have had little to do with protecting the environment, and almost all of which have been concerned with increasing production and consumption, have led to progress and development. Indeed, for the Asian Tigers, their development was constructed on a model that encourages mass production driven by increased industrialization. This industrialization was by no means green.
How does one therefore justify the claim that green growth is the only form of growth that makes economic sense?
It may make sense if one is absolutely and uncompromisingly committed to what is deemed sustainable development, which argues that since there are finite resources available to any nation, these resources should be exploited in a manner that does not jeopardize the interests of future generations.
Green development is linked to this vision. It is development that is environmentally conscious, aiming to reduce the negative environmental effects of development and promoting development that seeks sustainable use of natural resources. This is the relationship between green development and sustainable development.
But is sustainable growth the only form of economic growth that makes economic sense? Apart from the example of the Asian Tigers, the experience of many countries would suggest that it is not.  For example, the American economy was built on extensive and rapid exploitation of its vast natural resources.
China’s prominence today was built on a long period of heavy industrialization which has laid the foundation for a strong economy.  Now that both of these contrasting countries have achieved a certain level of internal development, they can now focus, because of the strength of their economies, on some degree of promoting green development , but by and large these countries will pursue forms of growth that are pro-production and pro-consumption.
The point being made is that there is no precedent of any rich, great or powerful nation being constructed on the principle of green development. But today, developing countries, which are trying to improve the lot of their people and who have a great deal of natural resources to exploit, are being asked to defer that development in order to pursue green development. In other words, green development is being used to keep developing countries in check.
The second highly questionable proposition made is because much of the discourse about green growth is about the costs and not on the opportunities and benefits. Well, by its very nature green growth emphasizes certain costs, the cost to the environment, the cost to the animal and human species, and the cost to future generations. The very notion of green growth is premised on these costs which proponents of green growth argue, need to be arrested before they lead to ecological death and unsustainable development.
And where exactly are we to find examples of the benefits and opportunities of green growth? Where are the examples of thriving green economies? There are none.
By foisting this idea of green growth on us, what the developed world and their lackeys are promoting is the notion that poor developing countries should delay rapid economic take-off in order to preserve the environment.
Unfortunately these very economies made it clear during the financial crisis that they were not prepared to sacrifice the development of their people in order to meet environmental standards.
This is where the real debate should be located. To what extent are the powerful nations of the world prepared to ensure compliance with international environmental standards so as to ensure that green development is also promoted in their countries.
These rich countries are not interested in green development. They are delegating that task to the poor countries of the world and selling them this mistaken idea that it is in the interest of poor countries to have green development.
Ironically, these poor countries will have to procure the new technologies of green development from the very rich countries, thus perpetuating the historical relationship of dependency which has created two worlds: one for the rich and the other for the poor.

 

 

---

---