green GDP

[Christophe]

Apparently economists have already thought about an "environmental" GDP but it does not seem ready to be used.

green GDP

It does not take into account the estimated value of public and private assets and liabilities (wealth), nor positive or negative externalities that change this value and therefore contribute to a gain or a loss of means. For example, it does not take into account the natural or mining resources of the country. In the case of a polluting production, followed by a process of depollution, one counts two productions, for an overall result nil. GDP in a way encourages pollution. It does not calculate environmental and social values, which are criteria of corporate social responsibility.

Because of this criticism, economists have thought of a green GDP. By the latter, we mean a measure that subtracts conventional GDP from the decline in the stock of natural resources. Such an accounting method would make it easier to know whether an economic activity increases or decreases national wealth when it uses natural resources [3]. However, economists believe that it would be difficult, no doubt, to put this new indicator in place.

Source: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Produit_in ... rieur_brut

[bamboo]

What bothers me: The GDP of a country would be even higher than it would plunder the resources of its neighbors (no deductions for the loss of natural resources of his country) ...

[lily]

Well yes! It will first of all be necessary to start by defining the method of calculating this "green GDP", or in any case this new index which could be used to define the "growth" of a country. And this is the moment when it will also be necessary to be attentive ... Anyway, it is for me undeniable that the idea of ​​a "green GDP" constitutes a progress compared to the current situation.

Indeed, when we see that our beloved president organizes in parallel to the Grenelle Environment a working group on the means to put in place to stimulate growth and that it promises the achievement of at least 50% of proposals made, we quickly see which side his heart swings!

In any case, I want to point out here that even among the sensitized people the word decay continues to make leap ... But who still thinks today that the 6 billions of men that our planet carries could live with the same standard of living that an average French. People are aware of this problem ... But we are completely formatted to think only from the GDP ... To convince people that we must act in favor of the environment even if it must be at the cost of the stabilization of growth, or even a decline in our GDP, then we must find a way to prove to them that the benefits will be real !! And yes!! it's not just the economy in life ...

I'm fed up with hearing that actions in favor of the environment should all be economically profitable! That in the contrary case one should not act ... And that "of course it is doable and of course I want to act to save my planet" ... It is nonsense! We must stop sticking our finger in the eye ... whether we like it or not sooner or later, we will have to stop this unhealthy growth rate!

Indicators integrating social, health, ecological ... data already exist ... It remains to highlight them ... And to remove from our way of thinking that GDP is the only way to assess the situation of 'a country!

So for me the "green GDP" (which I consider that it would be necessary to give a completely different name to signify its inscription in break with this obsolete index), it is a necessity and a considerable progress compared to the current situation. .
It will then be up to us to fight for the methods used to calculate this index are satisfactory and do not encourage dubious activities to do abroad what we can not do at home!
In my opinion, this is the only way for politicians to integrate the fact that actions in favor of the environment are beneficial to everyone, that they bring an improvement in the quality of life of everyone ... And in especially to our current government !!

(On the question, perhaps the work done by the Forest Economics Laboratory on forest amenities and its positive externalities can be a source of information and ideas! Lef.nancy-engref.inra.fr )

[Ahmed]

Well done Lily!
I think the reluctance about degrowth stems in large part from confusion (cleverly maintained, as you note) about the terms "purchasing power", "standard of living" and "growth". Many are impressed by the efficiency of our economic system: it is an illusion. Of course, there is efficiency in industrial production at the technical or accounting level, but at the global level it is deplorable.
Some examples: the automobile industry is a model of efficiency, but at the level of use it is a lot - brilliant: + there is a car, - it is possible to roll (Cf device).
A nuclear power plant has a gross yield of 27%, made a customer on is about 17%, all the rest is lost in heat.
Industrial agriculture is considered an example of productivity: the ratio between the number of farmers and cultivated area. But this is to forget all those who provide agriculture with products, services and machines: the "modern" farmer is little more than a cog in a process which he has no control over.
Have you ever been struck by the fact that, when a problem arises, among the possible solutions, are always the most complex and the most expensive that are privileged?

[Christophe]

A small video that shows the limits of GDP: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-V4SFp5S-k

[lilian07]

Hello,
I recognize here, the attitude of our intellectuals who in a multitude of castes try to find a compromise solution that does not cringe anyone.
So we always go to a very complex and inappropriate solutions where the problem is very simple at first sight.
To see what there is in the green GDP ... however it may be interesting to couple ecology to finance because failing to be able to "decrease" this transitional solution would be less worse than worse than anything ...

[Ahmed]

Lilian07, you write:

however it is perhaps interesting to couple ecology with finance, because failing to be able to "decrease" this transitional solution would be less worse than worse than anything ...

In short, would you like to combine opposites? This deserves a development ...
Of course, one could argue that finance is initially almost neutral, environmentally speaking, unlike industries and the so-called "real" economy, but this is hardly sustainable, since it is the financial industry that supports other activities and conditions the continuation of their nuisances.

[lilian07]

We must see what is in the green GDP but say that if the ecology becomes a stake +/- financial it will be de facto globalized and carried with a greater interest.
Let's take the example of a bonus / malus attributed to a pollution index, both in production and in household consumption ... a vast subject that can not exist in the current context where ecology does not make unanimity of votes, nor federate the common ideas of the partisans.

[Ahmed]

One can imagine devices penalizing certain behavior and encouraging others, as long as the higher end will be the increase of the mass of the abstract value, that can not change the necessity of the general destruction of the conditions of the life. .

[Ahmed]

To picture the thing, it could look like the rules of rugby: each player must perform the passes to the back, but the ball must necessarily go forward ...