Turezhanov S.U.

A.Baitursynov Kostanay State University, Kazakhstan

INTERNATIONAL TENDENCIES OF PASSING TO «GREEN ECONOMY»

 

As is known, the economy can be achieved in two ways. The first way - is a variant of extensive development, in which the main driver of economic growth is the integration into the economy of new reserves of natural resources, capital and labor.

The second way is that the growth is carried out through the involvement of new technologies (innovation), provide economic growth due to less use of factors of production - natural resources, capital and labor. Innovation cause productivity growth. The country's economy with the same resources, and sometimes at lower their volume reaches the top and great results.

About the possibility of strengthening the negative consequences of economic activity in terms of consumer behavior predominance of mankind pointed out by M. Veblen in his institutional theory. Forecasts Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) show that at the current modes of production and consumption by 2050 in comparison with the beginning of XXI century, the world will lose two-thirds (from 61 to 72%) of the flora and fauna and the preservation of natural areas will be irreversibly compromised by 7.5 million square meters. km .

These circumstances led to an active discussion of the international community in recent years the need to build a new level of economic thinking, which takes into account not only the wider interests of the people, but also the state of our planet as a whole. Such a model of a global system called the «green economy».

Meaningful «green economy» is a logical extension of the concept of sustainable development, based on the account primarily environmental factors of interaction between man and nature. Ecology in the «green economy» in the XXI century has evolved into a dynamic economic sector, are increasingly influencing the development of all economic and social policies.

By definition, UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) «green economy» boost prosperity and social justice, and provides, at the same time significantly reduces the risks for the environment and its deterioration.

Despite the growing popularity, the concept of «green economy» is no different uniform perception and filling. Among the opponents of the «green economy» are concerns that the transition to a new economic model will limit the opportunities for growth and hinder the solution of social problems [1].

Groundlessness of such presumption is rebutted supporters of «green economy» In particular, the Report of the WWF Living Planet provides irrefutable evidence of the pernicious influence of the traditional economy based on uncontrolled consumption of biological resources, followed by climate change, loss of ecosystem services and water scarcity.

According to experts, in the short term «green economy» is able to ensure GDP growth, increase in per capita income and employment in the same or even higher rates than the traditional «brown economy». In the medium - and long-term «green economy» will overtake «brown»  and also give a lot more advantages in terms of environmental protection and reducing social inequalities [2].

To go to the «green economy» is necessary in 2012-2050 invest only 2 % of world GDP in ten key sectors: agriculture, housing and utilities, energy, fisheries, forestry, industry, tourism, transport, disposal and recycling of waste and water management.

The report's authors believe that these funds may be drawn if the implementation of deliberate government policy and the use of innovative financing mechanisms. Additional resources may be obtained by eliminating the subsidies in the energy, water, fisheries and agriculture. Total subsidies on production and consumption of fossil fuels in 2008 exceeded 650 billion U.S. dollars, which prevents wider use of renewable energy sources [2].

Governments in many countries have found the need to consider the economic value of nature into decision-making. By this step they pushed analytical studies conducted with the participation of the United Nations. Foremost among those who decided to practice the results of the project entitled «The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity» (EEB), were India and Brazil.

A greater role in promoting the concept of «green economy» in life has made Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), the members of which were post-Soviet countries, including Kazakhstan. At the initiative of ESCAP in 2005 adopted a strategy of «green» growth, which originally included four priorities: sustainable consumption and production; «Greening» of businesses and markets; sustainable infrastructure and "green" tax and fiscal reform. Were subsequent added two more destinations - investing in natural capital and environmental performance indicators.

South Korea was the first country to implement the concept announced «green» growth as a national strategy. The focus of the strategy focuses on three elements: industry, energy and investment. The strategy is aimed at preserving the scale of productive economic activities with a minimum use of energy and other resources; to minimize pressure on the environment of all kinds of used energy and resources and the adoption of measures to make environmental investments and the driving force of economic growth.

Many countries use different tools to «green economy» in their national policies and strategies. On the need for «green» growth are increasingly talking in Kazakhstan, including at the highest political level. It also fears that the use of the model of «green economy» can slow the pace of economic growth due to increased environmental cost.

 

References:

1 Hermann D. and John Kobb. Economy reorientation to people, environment and the steady future//the Russian office of ISEE. - M.: 1994. - 323 pages.

2 Dzhulayeva A.M. Nurseytova G. B. Partnerstvo of the state and business as basis of the economic mechanism of formation and functioning of "green" economy//Messenger TREASURY. Series: Ecological / Alma-Ata "Қàzàch university ³" – ¹ 2/3 (38), 2013. - Page 51 – 55