What Makes the Global Implementation
of
GREEN TECHNOLOGIES SLOW AND DIFFICULT?

One of the most challenging problems the world is currently facing is the ever-worsening environmental degradation. Many experts forecast drastic effects of climate change on humanity if the issue is not to be addressed. Yet, the attempts of world governments to slow down the pace of environmental degradation can still be considered to be somewhat minimal. Notwithstanding the extent of innovation on greener technologies, we still see a trim level of utilization in many parts of the globe. This article explores how current relations between global actors with differing interests lead the world to a conundrum. 

​

To begin with, despite the more intricate interdependence amongst state and business actors within the realm of the economy - including the more complex process of production within the global supply chain system - it still seems that the nature of the production of clean energy technology is, like that of most other goods, still traditionally mercantilistic. Meckling and Hughes (2020) note that instead of promoting collaboration, there is still a sense of competition with zero-sum game rules, and that “this may or may not lead to cooperative outcomes.” In other words, the commercialization of the green technology industry that  could prevent cooperation to further advance research and development efforts, creating uncertainties.

​

Even so, different approaches to transition to cleaner energy between countries are present. Developed countries with more advanced research and development on the necessary technology tend to monopolize this knowledge by prioritizing the need to protect intellectual property rights to keep the incentive to innovate thriving (Koskina and Ibrahim, 2020). As a result, recipients of this technology, namely developing countries, are required to establish their own production of greener products to fit their needs, and are provided with little assistance from industrialized counterparts with the current system (Koskina and Ibrahim, 2020).

​

At the same time, the lack of institutional support at the supranational level through explicit legal norms exacerbates the condition. The forefront institutions handling the trade of environmentally friendly and clean energy goods, WTO and UNFCCC, do not have any direct regulation that explicitly addresses clean energy goods and acknowledges the different nature of their demand (Dent, 2018). Furthermore, in their attempt to fill the vacuum of rules, states, knowing well the distinct philosophies between the two institutions (namely trade that champions economic liberalism and environment that requires state interference), prefer different platforms they think best to address the issue (Dent, 2018). This mere technicality then impedes the world from solving environmental degradation problems amidst the continuously worsening circumstance.

    

The aforementioned monopoly done by developed countries to gain personal benefit out of this pressing environmental issue can be considered to be problematic, especially considering that they have historically been the most significant contributors to environmental degradation during their rapid industrialization period. Yet, developing third-world countries bear most of the costs of environmental issues such as climate change. Furthermore, in recent years, these less developed countries have notably shown their restless commitment to transition to greener technologies. Gosens (2020) finds that the growth of trade in clean energy goods between countries in the South in the last five years has outpaced such growth in North-North trade.

 

Ultimately, it is the initial assumption that clean energy goods are market commodities instead of a set of market infrastructures, which affects how states perceive green technology, is what poses great threat to developments towards sustainability the assumption. States should be obligated to provide people with public goods that can ensure the maintenance of the global market - and green technology is one of these goods. Products that guarantee the economy to operate sustainably and be free from the threats rendered by climate change should, from the get-go, be seen as public goods, not private ones.