‘green’ they must be providing alternative products/services/choices which substitute for existing products/services/choices and which have more sustainable total lifecycle chains than those existing products/services/choices (taking into account both upstream of the point of supply/choice and also
downstream) and sufficiently so to take us closer to long-term sustainable equilibrium positions. They should take into account all the impacts of that substitution (positive and negative) in arriving at this ‘calculation’.
A case in point is the current mini-goldrush for solar PV in the UK domestic sector – it’s good that this results in some non-fossil-fuel energy generation substituting for grid-supplied electricity (at its current mix of fossil-fuel and non-fossil-fuel energy). However, there is a downside to the inherent inefficiencies of lack of scale for each
individual installation, and an ecological footprint resulting from the manufacture of the panels (mostly in China, using a high proportion of coal-fired energy) and extended supply chains for transportation of the PV
panels over large distances to get to the installation site. I haven’t seen the total life-cycle impact analysis for a typical installation, but I certainly hope it is a positive ‘eco-NPV’ (if I could call it that) – and a lot more eco-friendly than small domestic wind turbines which, by reputation, have a very poor total lifecycle eco-calculation. Anyway, such an eco-NPV, if calculated, could provide the basis for saying that the ‘green growth’ in the solar PV manufacture and supply chain was a good thing, because of having a positive net eco-effect after considering the alternative national grid energy substituted. Of course, these benefits aren’t as great on a short-term
marginal basis as they are in the longer-term, when for example it might be possible to avoid building an oil or gas power station (or decommission an existing one sooner than previously planned) because of the number of PV
installations up and down the country at that time - that’s the point at which the benefits are most visible. However, at that point there is a big negative if the real substitution going on is the substitution of a new coal-fired power station in China for the oil or gas power station not built (or decommissioned) in the UK!
Although it's good to see DECC providing incentives to increase uptake of green energy generation, more needs to be done to tackle the deep-rooted deficiencies, barriers and inertia in the existing financial and economic paradigm. The following is from Paper 1 on the Green Economy from RIO+20 in June 2012:
"Attempts merely to overlay ‘green growth’ onto the finance driven model of economic globalisation, will be like setting freshly spawned fish to swim against a flood tide. The proposers of the Green New Deal dwelt on finance so much, precisely because it is the rock upon which sustainability repeatedly flounders."
More information about Green New Deal at: (link).
The following is a particularly good paragraph, from the same paper, setting out the challenge to the existing growth paradigm:
"Stop assuming that all GDP growth is good, and a panacea for all other objectives. Firstly it isn’t, there is jobless growth, growth with rising inequality and growth that masks qualitative decline within an economy. Secondly, continual GDP growth is incompatible with acknowledging inescapable planetary boundaries. Work by nef [New Economics Foundation], the Tyndall Centre for Climate Research and others have demonstrated this. No one has successfully demonstrated the opposite. Time and again, growth swamps gains from efficiency and technological innovations. Instead, start from the explicit premise that the economy must operate within given environmental parameters. Also, begin with a vision of what the economy is for, namely, to deliver the chance of relatively long and happy lives for everyone on the foundations of social justice for all. The current growth paradigm, even with heroic levels of ‘green innovation,’ cannot, without reduced overall consumption, on its own keep within environmental limits and deliver poverty alleviation and greater equality. This is not to say that necessary economic activity in some sectors and in many parts of the world will not contribute to GDP and localised growth. During transition to a low carbon, lower consumption economy, sectors that are key will expand. "