[wita]

Interesting curve. If true, and my BS meter does not agree necessarily, one should stop shortly after the turning point because there must be balance before the decline in per capita income. This would seem to me to run counter to common sense and reality in that as per capita income rises no one is doing diddly about pollution.

[wita]

Pollution might not be the best word here, better to use the chart word environment worsens. Either way it doesn’t sound right to me that environment naturally worsens with a rise in per capita income but I am listening.

[Toddsterpatriot]

If true, and my BS meter does not agree necessarily, one should stop shortly after the turning point

One should stop increasing income, or stop cleaning the environment?

[Yardstick]

I think you misread the graph. The horizontal axis is per capita income, so the further right you move the higher the income. The vertical axis is environmental degradation.

So waht it shows is that once you move rightward beyond the turning point, you get the best of both worlds — increasing income amd decreasing environmental degradation.

[Cronos]

there is no decline in per capita income -- that's on the X axis and keeps increasing. The graph shows that as X (per capita income) increases, Y (environmental degradation) increases to a point and then decreases

Why would one stop after the turning point? After the turning point, per capita increases and environmental degradation also decreases

[expat_panama]

as per capita income rises no one is doing diddly about pollution.

Let's think.  Where do we find more filth, poor neighborhoods or rich?   Which is more polluted, Mexico City or Bern Switzerland?