World is developing all the time and it is widely affecting our natural environment. As we have become consumer society, we need everything more and more. The problem is vested interests. Those who benefit from the status quo are either overrepresented in or have greater access to institutions that manage natural resources and protect the environment. U.S. climate legislation, for example, was defeated in no small part by resistance from fossil-fuel based energy advocates. If one day all polluting activities would be banned, there would be big confusion about how to live in future. In my opinion, we should learn to think when pollution can be justified and when not. For instance, I think that pollution is justified in Japan, in their nuclear power stations, because there are a lot of people and to find another way how to make that much energy would be very hard. But in this case they must have very high safety level, because they are in danger of cunami and earthquakes. If something goes wrong, the consequences are worldwide, because of radiation (like in Fukushima). …
Green economic conversion must be radical, but it must also be incremental and organic. How is this possible? Rodale cites the need for a kind of economic succession which mimics ecological landscape change. We need "pioneer enterprises" which can thrive in today's hostile economic landscape, but also prepare the ground for more ecological and egalitarian enterprises to come. A vision of what each sector of the economy would look like in an ecological economy--based on the specifics of each place--is a starting point. This vision must be coupled with practical action in each of these sectors, gradually moving toward this vision. Enough practical activity can eventually generate the impetus for state action to level the playing field for ecological alternatives.
