Environmental pollution is what an economist would call negative externality. Modern economic growth has been based on depleting or polluting environmental resources (air, water, land) in exchange for benefits and extensions of products, manufactures or services. No one fell into account, until middle of last century, that planet's resources were limited, that dirty air poisons and polluted water kills animals, plants and even people. It has taken several decades to imbue public opinion with idea that we live in what Kenneth Boulding called Earth spacecraft; A specific space, with limited potential for resource exploitation and survival conditions that are deteriorating without a strong universal political agreement to avoid it.
Pollution has serious economic consequences (externalities always have a cost) that can be measured, but not too accurately. It is assumed that cost each year for global economy exceeds 4.5 trillion dollars and kills nine million people. One wonders why re is no coordinated reaction across globe to end air pollution, limit use of chemical components, and put an end to waste of water. And more when fight against pollution constitutes, in itself, a potential business. Indeed, if so far it has been a business to consume resources and to load waste on environment, from now on profitable initiatives should appear massively for opposite, that is to say, to maintain a natural order prior to Industrialization. The problem is that temporal sequences of economic paradigm shifts are usually asymmetric. In this case, weight of a wasting economy of resources ( one defended by Trump, to simplify) is more powerful and intensive than that which aims to orient profitability towards ecological objectives.
While ecological economy gains critical mass (something that most optimistic ones trust to achieve before 2050), it is necessary to settle for a change that could be assimilated to an awareness, in sense that re is a general agreement in which economy of exploitation Without limits it is not feasible in medium and long term and in that what is to be done, to maintain a certain natural equilibrium, must be done now, from this moment. The Great protocols (Kyoto, Paris) have real impacts perfectly descriptibles. That is why it is necessary to involve companies in profitable processes of clean economy. It is symptomatic that more than thirty Spanish and multinational companies (including 11 listed in Ibex) have publicly claimed a law of climate change and energy transition, precisely one that government of PP promised in 2015 but Then he's relegated to oblivion.
Because macro-political agreements and protocols do not just unclog problem, time may have come (in economics, as in almost everything, it sends probability) that scheduled and regulated investments — public and private money — contribute what y can to Decontamination of planet. However, it is advisable to pay attention to a disturbing circumstance: national plans are not usually a prodigy of precision and finesse. See in this regard report of Committee of Experts on energy transition, in ory fundamental text to draw up law that investors claim in name of legal certainty. It raises more doubts than certainties and it is not possible to expect a strong guide on how transition to renewable energies should be developed. So much concern for backup power indicates vertigo by a risky jump and complex management.