Green New Deal

Emission trading systems aim to put a price on carbon, to save emissions where it is cheapest and benefit the global climate. But the approach has failed so far. In the EU, the price for carbon has dropped to a low, so producers can easily continue polluting. And they are actually making huge profits from the permits they receive. This external content requires your consent. Please note our privacy policy. Open external content on original site This external content requires your consent. Please note our privacy policy.

Can and should the global climate be regulated by technological means, the so called geoengineering? In our first episode of our podcast "Tipping point" our host took off to hear from experts what these approaches mean for the planet’s environment and society. This external content requires your consent. Please note our privacy policy. Open external content on original site This external content requires your consent. Please note our privacy policy.

At the UN’s COP 22 climate conference in Marrakech, the international community closed ranks despite (or perhaps because of?) the election of Donald Trump as the next U.S. president. 

The green economy is being put forward as a model to solve ecological and economic crises. But can it really deliver? 

An interview with the Co-President of the Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung on rethinking the concept of growth.

As rate of emissions grows at alarming rates, a future of dangerous climate conditions is looming, Nevertheless, too often proposed “solutions” are designed on wishful thinking, political agendas, or unfeasible technologies, rather than addressing climate change root causes. “net-zero emissions”, one of the latest faulty “solutions”, suggests that the world can continue producing emissions as long as there is a way to offset them.

In the wake of declining political will for environmental protection, many in the environmental community are advocating for the monetization of nature. Some argue that monetization, by revealing the economic contribution of nature and its services, can heighten public awareness and bolster conservation efforts. Others go beyond such broad conceptual calculations and seek to establish tradable prices for ecosystem services, claiming that markets can achieve what politics has not. However, such an approach collapses nature’s complex functions into a set of commodities stripped from their social, cultural, and ecological context and can pose a threat to the poor and indigenous communities who depend on the land for their livelihood. Although the path from valuation to commodification is not inevitable, it is indeed a slippery slope. Avoiding this pitfall requires a reaffirmation of the precautionary principle and a commitment to democratic decision-making and social justice as the foundations of a sound environmental policy for the twenty-first century.

The bioeconomy above all focuses on technological innovation to make better use of available resources. In principle, this is not a bad idea, says Barbara Unmüßig. The question though is for the benefit of whom and at whose expense these innovations are implemented, and also what the undesirable side-effects are like. This is a plea against focusing on growth.