Green growth, the promotion of energy efficiency and clean energy technologies and sustainable development are frequently viewed as complementary goals by international policymakers. This paper argues that green growth will not ensure sustainable economic development as long as global ecosystem degradation and loss means that the world continues to face worsening problems of ecological scarcity — the loss of myriad benefits, or “services”, as these systems are exploited for human use and activity. Overcoming this problem requires addressing further sustainability and funding challenges. The sustainability challenge is to overcome a vast array of market, policy and institutional failures that prevents recognition of the economic significance of this scarcity. The funding challenge is to bridge the shortfall between the global benefits that humankind receives from ecosystems and what we are willing to pay to maintain and conserve them. Improving economic and scientific analysis of ecological scarcity, valuing the loss in benefits, and translating the implications into policy are the key steps for addressing the sustainability challenge.
Global interest in the ‘green economy’ has heightened since 2008, and this article contributes to these discussions by elaborating on (a) four alternative, and sometimes competing, discourses of the green economy, and (b) the particular politics of the green economy in South Africa. Most research on the green economy tends to focus on European and North American countries, however in the context of a changing global economy and the ‘rise of the South’ the politics of the green economy in countries like South Africa is of increasing importance. South Africa faces many challenges in pursuing a transition to a more sustainable development path, yet has been cited as a global green economy leader. This article argues that this is related to the particular discourse of ‘green growth’ which is dominant in South Africa, and proposes two significant lines of critique of this discourse. The first cautions that commitment to the green economy may not be particularly deep-rooted, sustained or coherent; and the second highlights some of the more troubling political implications of the type of green growth advocated, even if it were to be pursued with more determination.
Readiness is a concept interchanged with preparedness and, many assume, adequate knowledge. Simple as it may be, readiness denotes a complex interaction of parameters and conditionalities required for an uptake of a phenomenon – in the context of this article, green economy transition. Following deliberations to and from Rio + 20, there is no doubt the world is set to undertake green economy as a means to attaining sustainable development, poverty eradication, job creation and equity evermore. At the heart of the green economy is the need to address negative impacts associated with one of the key global challenges of our epoch, climate change. The question this article seeks to address is: To what extent is South Africa green economy ready? Focusing on the national sphere of government, the article concludes that this country has moved swiftly in addressing key readiness parameters, including high-level commitment and stakeholder buy-in, enhancing institutional set-up, developing the necessary legislation, establishing funding mechanisms and having programmes running on the ground.
In the wake of the global financial crisis, interest in the relationship between the economy and the environment substantially increased. Several proposals emerged between 2008 and 2012 for the creation of a ‘Green New Deal’, ‘Green Stimulus’, and a ‘Green Economy’. These proposals are often conflated with one another under the rubric of ‘green capitalism’, but there are important distinctions to be made between them. Each suggests a different role for the state in regulating the market and the financial sector (i.e. they suggest different models of capitalism). The proposals can also be distinguished by the positions taken on ecological modernisation (i.e. they put forward different models of ‘greenness’). Recognition that there are varieties of green capitalism being mooted increases the opportunities for more targeted critiques of each model and enables a more constructive debate about the options for creating sustainable economies in the developed world.
The social goals of reducing unemployment and enabling ecologically sustainable development are more likely to be achieved if the spatial dimensions of economic policy are made explicit. Looking from this perspective, this article considers recent policy initiatives undertaken by the federal Labor government in response to the global financial crisis. Investment in infrastructure is assessed by comparing where government expenditure is being targeted with the regional distribution of unemployment. The expansion of ‘green’ jobs is considered in relation to the prospects of marrying concerns of growth, equity and sustainability with proactive urban and regional policies.