Reclaiming the Green Economy (Gaian economics)

Molly Scott Cato / Gaian Economics / September 2012

This blog reveals some of the tensions on how to define the green economy. Cato argues the concept of a green economy has been co-opted to promote a “greener” version of the existing growth model and to maximise profit. She concludes that instead of accepting this it will be important to reclaim the meaning of a green economy for people and planet.

Read article

“I have become increasingly saddened in recent weeks to see how those of us who first conceptualised the ‘green economy’ have been allowing that phrase to be co-opted by the forces of capital and by those who would seek to use it to swell the size of their profits. I am now reading critiques of the green economy from the left which lead me to ask, if not a green economy, then what? Surely our strategy should rather be to reclaim the green economy.

An example is a recent report from the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation called Beautiful Green World: on the Myths of a Green Economy. In the following sentence it abandons the attempt to ensure that the green economy will be founded on social justice rather than the maximisation of profit:

‘The green economy therefore does not mean that the protection of people and the environment substitutes the drive for profit. Rather, in the world of the green economy the generation of profit remains the necessary condition of all economic activity, and environmental protection is subordinated to it.’

I could not disagree more and I think it is a disastrous idea to concede this turf to the capitalists.

The sort of argument critiqued by Rosa Luxemburg is to be found in a report from the Green Alliance: Green Economy: A UK Success Story. This attempts to argue for investment in the green economy to save the economy from recession and stimulate growth. It grows out of exactly the same competitive, growth-driven mentality that has created the ecological crisis. The message to policy-makers is that Britain can compete most effectively and make the most profits from prioritising the green economy. While it is immensely encouraging to see how the green sectors are flourishing in the midst of recession, this framing is not helpful.

It is a fine line between calling for investment in better-insulated homes and rail networks while rejecting the idea of green growth, but I find the concept of transitional investment helpful here. If money (and energy) invested now can ensure that we will be able to enjoy a good life with a lower investment of energy in the future then it can be justified. Just as we have had to hold onto the meaning of sustainability, as it has been disfigured into ‘sustainable development’ and even emptied of meaning other than something that lasts for a year or two, so we should not abandon the use of the phrase ‘green economy’ while rejecting any association with oxymorons such as ‘green growth’.”

—————————–

1 comment on the blog

Jody Boehnert 11 September 2012 14:05:00 BST

Hi Molly, 

The recent launch of the UN’s so-called ‘Green Economy’ project at Rio+20 creates a huge problem for environmental communicators. On one hand we need to refer to their project by its name (in order to critique it, challenge it and build oppositional movements). Yet the name blatantly appropriates the language of ecological theorists as a camouflage for a very different agenda (i.e. the expansion of markets based mechanisms to supposedly protect nature).

The Green Economy Report, UNEP’s flagship document for Rio+20 is here: http://www.unep.org/greeneconomy/greeneconomyreport/tabid/29846/default.aspx.

I agree that we should attempt to fight to keep the term ‘Green Economy’ from being appropriated and misused. The problem then becomes how do we critique these projects working to redefine ‘the green economy’ when these projects (i.e. the UNEP, the UN, etc.) have far more resources to establish cultural legitimacy?

It seems to me that the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation is referring to the false green economy (as proposed by the UN). So ideologically the report is defending the ‘real’ green economy, but the rhetorical devices we have at our disposal are now entirely contaminated. It is becoming very confusing. It will remain difficult to talk about a ‘green economy’ when the UN is using this language to refer to something entirely different from what we mean by this idea.

I have recently dealt with this problem by adding the ‘false’, ‘so-called’ and ‘not’ in front of every instance of the term ‘green economy’. See: ‘The False Green Economy’- http://eco-labs.org/index.php/news-mainmenu-46/239-ecolabs-position-statement-on-the-green-economy

Yes we must reclaim the Green Economy – but how to do this without looking like we are supporting their false green economy programme?? What a mess! Too bad we did not copyright the phrase. (joke)

————————————

This summary was prepared by Why Green Economy?. The views expressed have been paraphrased. See the original source for more information.