Affluence: Is it a Solution to the Environmental Crisis - Term Paper Example

Affluence: Is it a Solution to the Environmental Crisis? Introduction Societies all around the world need to reduce poverty and protect the environment. Poverty is mitigated through economic development, which means more aggressive exploitation of natural resources and more severe pollution and hence greater burden on the environment. Hence the question is, is it possible to enjoy increasing affluence and better environmental quality simultaneously? Brutal growth, specifically the traditional material or resource exhaustive production burdens the economy’s energy and material ‘sources and sinks’ (De Bruyn, 2000, p. 61). Although brutal growth, without doubt, causes environmental crisis, zero growth is not a solution as such (Myers & Kent, 2004). This essay tries to prove that affluence is part of the solution to environmental problems. The Debate A statement given to the Club of Rome in the 1970s informed the world about the adverse impact of continuous affluence (De Bruyn, 2000, p. 1). Increasing land shortage, aggressive exploitation of non-renewable and renewable resources, and worsening pollution would eventually bring affluence to a standstill. The disintegration of natural and human-made structures would be the outcome. Unless drastic measures were carried out to curb affluence, the economic system would impair the surrounding ecosystem (Field & Field, 2008). At the latter half of the 1960s, post-war economic prosperity was broadly viewed as one of the major accomplishments of contemporary societies. However, during this period progressing affluence was condemned as having a detrimental impact, especially on the environmental system (Dugger & Peach, 2009). Within several years several scholars challenged the potential and appeal of sustainable economic prosperity in the long term. However, several economists countered strongly by stressing that these scholars had underrated technological progress and had overlooked price behaviour, which would involuntarily regulate supply and demand of natural resources. It is not necessary to curb affluence; understanding external outcomes would be adequate (Ison et al., 2002). Other economists even claimed that affluence could greatly contribute to environmental stability as it encourages technological development and produces the resources needed for funding environmental programmes (Hollander, 2004). Beckerman (1992 as cited in De Bruyn, 2000, p. 2) argued that the most definite way to strengthen the environment was to become affluent, or to reinforce and sustain economic prosperity. The major advocates of affluence believe that economic prosperity is the solution to environmental problems. Economic prosperity stimulates technological development and lifestyle changes that will strengthen the environmental system. The policy proposal is thus to encourage economic prosperity and eliminate obstacles which hinder technological development and the successful conservation of the environment (Dugger & Peach, 2009). These economists depend on market processes to mitigate environmental crises and are cautious of environmental policies because these could bring in ‘government-failures’ such as bureaucracy (De Bruyn, 2000, p. 3). Other economists believe that even though greater output can have possible adverse environmental impact, it generates the resources from which useful environmental policies can be funded. Affluence is regarded as a precondition for environmental policy (Hussen, 2004). Therefore, the ideal way to strengthen the environment is to encourage affluence while at the same time implementing environment measures. The Empirical Evidence The argument that economic prosperity is helpful to the environment has been substantiated by findings that there is an empirical correlation between a certain level of environmental condition and per capita income. It has been discovered that as income increases there is worsening environmental disintegration up to a certain point, then environmental condition gets better (Arrow et al., 1995, p. 520). The relationship has been described as an inverted U-shaped curve. A particular explanation of these findings is that consumers in poor societies are not able to prioritize environmental comfort over material security. As a result, in the initial phases of economic growth, elevated pollution is considered a reasonable by-product of economic progress (Arrow et al., 1995, p. 520). Nevertheless, when a society has achieved an adequately high level of affluence people places more emphasis on environmental comforts (Hanley et al., 2003); this results in environmental policies, new measures for environmental conservation, and so on. To date the inverted-U shape has been proven to relate to a certain group of pollutants. Nevertheless, since it is in line with the idea that people invest reasonably more in environmental comforts as their earnings increase, economists have speculated that the inverted-U shape can also be applied to environmental condition in general (Arrow et al., 1995; Myers & Kent, 2004). However, it is crucial to be definite about the assumptions that can be obtained from such empirical results. Although they do suggest that affluence could be related to advances in several environmental markers, they indicate neither that economic prosperity is enough to bring about environmental progress generally, nor that the impact of affluence on the environment could be disregarded, nor, certainly, that the resource supply of the planet is able to sustain continuous economic progress (Lomborg, 2001). Indeed, if this supply were to be permanently damaged, economic mechanism itself may be threatened. Jack Hollander, an environmental scholar, believes that the biggest threat to the environment is prevalent poverty. Hollander “makes the case that poverty is also linked to violence against the environment and that a global transition from poverty to affluence is essential to bringing about an environmentally sustainable world” (Dugger & Peach, 2009, p. 75). According to Hollander (2004), the poor’s environmental predicaments are mostly different from the environmental problems of the affluent. Affluent countries could give attention to global warming and other environmental problems. In poor countries, environmental issues are often local and mostly vicious (Berck & Helfand, 2011). Hollander (2004) believes that the deprived suffer from an environment plagued with widespread illnesses, polluted water sources, food shortage, and harsh inequalities. Hollander asserts that the heart of the environmental debate is the connection between the environment and affluence. He claims that this connection is obvious and widely known (Hollander, 2004, p. 27): “People of means have always sought to live amidst beautiful surroundings, regardless of the squalor that may have been nearby”. In essence, the rich are inherently environmentalists. The solution of Hollander (2004) for the overwhelming environmental crisis is to make everybody rich so that everybody will have an interest in solving environmental problems. Hence Hollander explores a number of key environmental concerns, such as the use of fossil fuel, fresh water supply, availability of food, and population growth. In every issue, he speculates that the environment would be enhanced if scarcity or poverty were eradicated. If affluence can be distributed so that a greater number of people benefit from it, more people will be capable of spending on environmental amenities, such as carbon emission reduction (Dugger & Peach, 2009). Hindering growth and the dispersal of affluence, in contrast, makes it more difficult for most people to invest in environmental protection. To put it briefly, the availability of resources and environmental quality do not create obstacles to economic affluence. Rather, environmental sustainability cannot be maintained without affluence. Pervasive inequality and poverty are incompatible with environmental value (Anderson, 2010). Moreover, economic prosperity and environmental quality support each other. In the end, societies should prioritise them both at the same time. As individuals become richer, most become more and more aware of and interested in the wellbeing of their environment. And acquiring prosperity helps generate the resources needed to improve and conserve the environment. Obviously, affluence on its own does not ensure an improved environment. Social responsibility is needed. Political action is also needed (Hollander, 2004). However, as argued by Hollander “affluence is a key ingredient for ensuring a livable and sustainable environment for the future” (Hollander, 2004, p. 2). The true adversary of the environment is widespread poverty. Poor people usually do ransack natural resources, overburden and congest their surroundings, and contaminate their environment. They perpetrate such deeds not because of stubborn disregard but because of the need to stay alive (Tietenberg & Lewis, 2011). They know the environmental comforts that rich people experience, but they are also aware that for them the movement towards a healthier environment will be difficult and that their urgent objective should be to get out of the grips of poverty. They cannot achieve this objective without help—help from charitable groups, countries, and people and from strong and genuine responses from their governments. For the rich countries to help those in poor countries is morally worthy and socially responsible (Hollander, 2004). However, from an environmental point of view the matter is beyond the issue of morality. It is practical too, for the environmental interests of the rich would be greatly fulfilled by the elimination of poverty (Perman et al., 2011; Hollander, 2004). This insight bothers those who worry that individuals coming out of poverty will certainly become spendthrift consumers and will aggravate the world’s environmental crisis as they hunt for and enjoy the frills of affluence. The apprehension is justifiable, but the judgment is inaccurate (Hollander, 2004). Undoubtedly, individuals experiencing material comfort will become intensive consumers. Still, they will also spend on leisure, health, and education (Myers & Kent, 2004). And, eventually, they will invest in environmental quality. In affluent nations environmentalism emerged as a response to the detrimental effects of premature industrialisation and economic prosperity. They had witnessed environmental disintegration, and they wanted positive change (Myers & Kent, 2004). One of the grand achievements of the modern period is, actually, the exceptional success the industrial countries have attained, during a time of vigorous economic development, in defeating the adverse environmental effects of industrialization (Hollander, 2004; Perman et al., 2011). The correlation between the environment and affluence is neither constant nor changeable over time. Preventing or decreasing economic growth does not solve environmental crisis already existing, nor stop current paces of depletion of natural resources resulting in catastrophe in the future. Furthermore, the economic and political systems are usually affected by weakened economic progress in ways which damage the environment instead of protecting it. Investments in environmentally friendly technologies, which generally are launched and distributed more rapidly in developing industries than in declining industries, are pushed back, more economical and more environmentally adverse technologies are used instead of cleaner ones, and so forth (Anderson, 2010). Such unbalanced environmental responses, alongside usual economic issues such as income inequalities, unemployment, etc, which normally stem from decreased economic development, render a stop-growth measure a quite doubtful solution to environmental crisis; and still sustained brutal growth is unfavourable (De Bruyn, 2000; Hanley et al., 2003). The condition seems to necessitate major technological and structural reforms. Conclusion Affluence is not a universal remedy for environmental problems; in fact, it is not even the major subject matter. What is important is the nature of affluence—the nature of economic growth. The nature of affluence is influenced by the economic arenas wherein human activities are carried out. These arenas have to be planned or modified in order for them to generate the correct motivations for safeguarding the stability of the environment. These steps will not merely facilitate better successes in the distribution of natural resources, but they would also guarantee a secure and healthy economic functioning within the ecosystem. Conserving the ability of the environment to maintain wellbeing is of as much value to unfortunate societies as it is to affluent ones. References Anderson, D.A. (2010) Environmental Economics and Natural Resource Management. London: Routledge. Arrow, K. et al. (1995) “Economic Growth, Carrying Capacity, and the Environment”, Science, 268, 520-521. Berck, P. & Helfand, G. (2011) Economics of the Environment. New York: Pearson Higher Education. De Bruyn, S. (2000) Economic Growth and the Environment: An Empirical Analysis. Norwell, MA: Springer. Dugger, W. & Peach, J.T. (2009) Economic Abundance: An Introduction. New York: M.E. Sharpe. Field, B. & Field, M. (2008) Environmental Economics. New York: McGraw Hill. Hanley, N., Shogren, J.F., and White, B. (2003) Introduction to Environmental Economics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hollander, J.M. (2004) The Real Environmental Crisis: Why Poverty, Not Affluence, Is the Environment’s Number One Enemy. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. Hussen, A.M. (2004) Principles of Environmental Economics. London: Routledge. Ison, S., Peake, S., and Wall, S. (2002) Environmental Issues and Policies. New York: Prentice Hall. Lomborg, B. (2001) The Skeptical Environmentalist. London: Cambridge University Press. Myers, N. & Kent, J. (2004) The New Consumers: The Influence of Affluence on the Environment. Washington, DC: Island Press. Perman, R. et al. (2011) Natural Resource and Environmental Economics. New York: Pearson-Addison Wesley. Tietenberg, T. & Lewis, L. (2011) Environmental and Natural Resource Economics. New York: Pearson. Read More