In the 1990s, the discourse on the relationship between economic growth and environmental degradation expanded exponentially (Cole & Neumayer, 2005; Stern, 2003; 2004). Most of this intellectual confabulation revolved around the Environmental Kuznets Curve, a hypothesis that argues that environmental degradation would increase during an early economic development phase, eventually reaching the ‘turning point’ where improvement in environmental conditions will begin. In other words, the graphical relationship between per capita income and environmental pollution would be represented by an inverted U-shaped curve, drawing direct relevance to the behavior of the Kuznets curve that (originally) theorizes economic inequality and per capita income to exhibit the same relationship, named after Simon Kuznets who hypothesized this relationship in the early 1950s. However, the adapted version of the general model into the ecological framework emerged much later in the 1990s, alongside other growing concern for environment such as the development of frameworks such as sustainability.
Theoretical background
The origins and early analysis of the EKC can be traced back to the colossal studies undertaken in the 1990s. Grossman and Krueger’s publication ‘Environmental impacts of the North American Free Trade Agreement’ in 1991 was revolutionary in comparing the general Kuznets Curve and its relevance in the context of environmental degradation. They attempted to establish that economic growth that potentially resulted out of the NAFTA would also account for a degree of environmental degradation. However, with a focus on the specific context of Mexico at the time, Grossman and Kreuger were able to establish the presence of the turning point...
... middle of paper ...
...nd the sustainability framework. The EKC’s limited scope in terms of understanding differences in present and future scenarios, in environmental capacities and resilience, in social choices and preferences within and across countries makes the path it endorses inherently unsustainable in nature. This further hinders the turning point analysis that policy makers are most concerned with as the collective turning point estimated for a given set of countries may or may not hold and may not be socially desirable, even if found to exist in the first place (Dinda, 2003). Also, the dependence and pressure on technology to constantly stay ahead of change offers shaky grounds for the sustainability case as it offers no guarantee that pollution levels that are being allowed under EKC will be within the estimated safe thresholds and temporary in nature (Arrow et al., 1995).
Over the past years, numerous studies on the Environmental Kuznets Curve have been in great contention by investigating the income-pollution relationship. In recent times, however, criticism of cross-section estimations of the EKC hypothesis has grown. Consequently, the contribution of this study uses time series data for a developed country with reliable data: Canada. A dynamic analysis is performed in the form of the Vector Error Correction Model to test the short-run and long-run relationship of income and pollution. Using this method it is found that short-run estimations do not support the EKC hypothesis, but only in the long-run does it support the EKC hypothesis.
Stern, DI 2004, 'The rise and fall of the environmental Kuznets Curve', World Development, vol. 32 no. 8, pp 1419-1439, Elsevier, Maryland, USA.
Sustainability, as an issue, has been the subject of widespread debate for ages now. While some people cannot associate themselves with the concept, others are too agnostic about the implementation of practices which can result in a win-win scenario for all. Another subset even wonders if the practices itself are sustainable or not. Such different views helps little to achieve the objective, when it is itself difficult to begin with.
Generational conflicts, political strife, environmental regulations, stakeholders in big oil, and many more hurdles affect the push to fully sustainable economies around the world and even here in America. In a world where coal, oil, and natural gas are limited, countries are gobbling it all up as fast as they can before other poorer countries come on the grid. Even though America and other countries gobble up these resources the life of the people is still a struggle to meet basic needs. Sustainability is an intermingling of resource use and protection of the “quality of life”, it is met by using resources sparingly and by recycling or reducing the use of other non-renewable resources to provide for our immediate need, but also to conserve and protect the needs of the next generation and to improve the quality of all the lives to come.
(8) Barbier, E. B.; Markandya, A. The conditions for achieving environmentally sustainable development. Eur. Econ. Rev. 34, 659-669. (1990).
Globalisation and environmental sustainability is encapsulated with Environmental Kuznets Curves (EKC) which are commonly used to consider macro-changes in environmental quality resul...
The fundamental flaw of the environmental Kuznets’ curve theory (EKCT) lies in its compartmentalization of environmental impacts, which serve as its basis for establishing a direct relationship with per capita income, the indicator considered for economic development. While it is true that environmental impacts may be spliced and analyzed empirically, actual ecological processes belong to a web of inter-relationships that current science is still trying to fully understand. It is dangerous and irresponsible to assume or suggest that an assortment of piecemeal positive trends can lead to a conclusion that environmental quality improves with economic growth. Adhering to the EKCT is equivalent to accepting that ecological models follow the same trajectory. This means that the same kind of pollution that occurs in two separate countries will more or less have the same effect. The theory does not exhibit much sensitivity to the variation in the value of ecosystems and species. The reality is that some ecosystems are greater in value, are more fragile, and are more species rich than others.
GDP growth shows little about the impact of production on the environment and its consequences on living standards. Is our economy, with its mixture of market processes and governmental controls, biased in favour of wasteful and short-sighed exploitation of natural resources? (Nordhaus & Tobin, 1972) Evidence from the World bank’s PM2.5 air pollution indicator shows that over 94% of Ethiopia’s population are exposed to air pollution since 2000 and an increasing trend is realized in subsequent years. Mauritius, on the other hand, records a low rate 0.97% in 2000 which rises to 26.6% in 2013. Calculation of GDP are unlikely to satisfy critics who believe that economic growth per se piles up immense social cost ignored in even the most careful national income calculations (Nordhaus & Tobin, 1972). Though GDP is growing, it excludes its impact on the environment. What then is the importance of growth if it destroys the sustenance of
Fishermen disbanded from their water because of privatization of ponds, now unable to make a dollar a day and unable to provide for their families. Whole communities evacuated from their homes because of the rising sea level caused by global warming, now in search of new homes and struggling to put together one meal a day. Another community without salmon and eels because of dams built and rules made by colonial invaders, now without a strong culture and healthy, traditional foods to eat. Each of these scenarios show how capitalist systems change the environment, social reproduction of certain communities, and culture. Global capitalism and colonialism disproportionately impact certain communities and negatively alters their access to food, shelter, healthcare, water, and employment.
Chasek, P. S., Downie, D. L., & Brown, J. W. (2014). The Development of Environmental Regimes: Chemicals, Wastes, and Climate Change. In P. S. Chasek, D. L. Downie, & J. W. Brown, Global Environmental Politics (6th ed., pp. 101-173). Boulder: Westview Press.
There has been a long-standing relationship between industry, and the trending deterioration of various elements in our natural environment. The industrial revolution that took place in the early 19th century gradually but definitively led to an upsurge in modernization and urbanization. With this came an increase in consumer consumption. By the late 1900s, the exploitation of various natural resources such as coal and natural gas became integral to the continual growth of most manufacturing sectors (Kibert, C. 1999). At the time, stakeholders were yet to completely comprehend the impact of such rapid advancements on their natural environment and while several positive considerations may be made about the extensive increase in commercial activity, one can no longer ignore the resulting burden on our natural resources and the detrimental effects of the waste being generated on our environment.
In traditional opinions, environmental protection and economic growth are mutually contradictory. Economic growth is a high environmental cost, and protecting the environment will limit the economic growth. The reason of contradiction stems from the inappropriate understandings among development, economic growth and environmental protection. In fact, economic growth could have a harmonious relationship with environmental protection.
The factories are released harmful chemicals and toxic waste into bodies of water, which lead human beings to suffer. Pesticides and fertilizers pollute the water system. Drinking water is contaminated. Some residing in third-world countries are highly affected by the degradation of our planet. Such practices cause illness death in children, death in adults, poverty.
In the early 90’s the UNEP and the World Bank set out to examine the feasibility of physical and monetary accounting in the area of natural resources and the environment and to develop alternative macro indicators of environmentally adjusted and sustainable income and product. Simultaneously, the Statistical Division of the United Nations (UNSTAT) also developed methodologies for a System of Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting (SEEA).
Though several people see large rapidly growing populations in developing regions as the primary culprit in environmental decline, we need to focus on the costly environmental outcomes of overconsumption among the gradually increasing populations of the developed nations. These differing emphases naturally point to fundamentally different solutions: slow population increase in less-developed nations or change destructive consumption and production patterns in the more-developed nations. This debate, however, assumes a one-step answer to the complex problems created by population pressures on the environment. Both population size and consumption ...