Environmental degradation? It's the economy, stupid

"A system of conservation based solely on economic self-interest is hopelessly lopsided. It tends to ignore, and thus eventually eliminate, many elements in the land community that lack commercial value, but that are (as far as we know) essential to its healthy functioning."
- Aldo Leopold

Economic growth is an increase in the production and consumption of goods and services and is a function of population and consumption, per capita. Economists measure growth by assessing a country's gross domestic product, the annual sum of goods and services produced and purchased in the nation, or by gross national product, which is GDP plus net property income from abroad.

From 1940 to 2000, the GNP of the United States increased from $3,001 billion to approximately $41,017 billion. In the fourth quarter of 2004, the GDP increased at an annual rate of 3.8 percent. For the same quarter, personal income rose an average of 0.8 percent. These numbers are closely monitored by economists, Wall Street brokers and politicians. If the numbers begin to falter, immediate actions (someone call Greenspan) are taken to ensure continued economic growth. At any cost.

And the costs are many. While GDP and GNP are the traditional methods used to measure economic growth, there are a multitude of other numbe rs that can be used to measure economic growth that don't find their way into college-level economics classes, the Wall Street Journal or on Capitol Hill. Numbers like: 51.9 million - acres of asphalt in the U.S., an area roughly the size of Kansas; 1100 - miles of streams in West Virginia impacted by acid mine drainage as a result of coal mining; 281 vs. 1263 - number of Federally Endangered or Threatened Species in 1980 vs. 2002, a 4.5-fold increase; and 0 - the possibility of continued economic growth based on basic principles of ecology and physics.

Surprisingly, most people do not connect economic growth to environmental degradation. There is a myth that a strong economy supports a healthy environment - that the two somehow complement one another. However, economic growth and a healthy environment are not compatible. Economic growth is spurred by population increases and increases in per-capita consumption; environmental impacts grow more severe as 1) human population increases, 2) per capita consumption increases and 3) technology advances. In some instances, technology can reduce environmental impacts (hybrid cars), but technology typically increases impacts by making it more efficient to exploit natural resources, increase production rates or increase consumption rates (think of all the research and technology that goes into marketing - trying to get you to buy stuff that you don't need).

We must remember that it is the environment that supports our economy. Since natural resources are finite, economic growth cannot continue indefinitely, despite advances in technology. A new economic philosophy that emphasizes economic stability, not growth, is needed or continued environmental degradation will ultimately lead to both an ecological and economic collapse.

Economic growth is spurred by population increases and increases in per-capita consumption; environmental impacts grow more severe as 1) human population increases, 2) per capita consumption increases and 3) technology advances.

The author has this backward... population increases do not spur economic growth. Were this the case third world nations would be economic power houses which is not the case. Per capita consumption only increases in growing economies..not stagnant ones, e.g. Haiti while having a growing population certainly is not seeing an increase in per capita consumption.

The record of third world nations on environmental damage is consistently poor because they do not have the technology to produce basic goods like food except by wasteful and environmentally damaging means...e.g., burning rain forests to replace depleted farm lands.

Rapid population growth is not being seen in high tech industrialized economies like the EU or US. People in these economies do not feel the pressure to have large families to sustain them in old age, have workers for the family farm or make up for high infant/child mortality.

If this author were a student in my economics class he would get an F on this paper.

I've often wondered how an economy can grow indefinitely. I would think the eventually it would have to peak and then just maintain.

Any given commodity would - assuming strictly terrestrial resources - have to reach a saturation point. The example of microchips shows, however, that continuous improvement in the value of apparently limitless commodities is possible.
The other famous example is the trivial value of the minerals in a human cadaver. Compare with the value associated with the living person!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.