Environmental Kuznets curve
From Green Wiki
Some researchers have suggested that economic development eventually reduces environmental damages per capita when sufficient wealth and technology allows nations to adopt clean production methods and move towards a service-based economy. Further, environmental quality is generally considered a “normal good” – meaning that people will demand more of it as they become wealthier. The Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) hypothesis posits an inverted U-shaped relationship between economic development and environmental damages. According to this logic, environmental damage per capita increases in the early stages of economic development, reaches a maximum, and then diminishes as a nation attains higher levels of income. If the evidence supported this hypothesis, then it would imply that economic development will eventually promote a cleaner environment.
Does this principle really work? The EKC relationship does seem to hold for some pollutants.
However, the EKC relationship does not appear to hold for many other environmental problems. Studies of municipal waste and energy use find that environmental impacts generally continue to rise as incomes rise. Perhaps most importantly, carbon dioxide emissions tend to show a positive relationship with average income. This means that carbon emissions can be generally expected to increase as economies grow, unless current dependence on fossil fuel energy is drastically altered. Thus economic development alone appears unlikely to provide a guaranteed path towards environmental sustainability. The relationship between economic development and the environment is, in reality, more complex. Not only is the level of economic development a relevant factor in determining environmental impacts, but the distribution of resources also plays a key role. Most definitions of sustainable development focus on the imperative of reducing economic inequalities along with preserving the environment.
Some environmental damages, such as soil erosion and deforestation, often occur because poor people undertake unsustainable practices simply to survive. Programs to eliminate poverty in developing nations can provide people with choices that are less destructive towards the environment. Meanwhile, environmental degradation typically hits the poorest people the hardest. Policies that improve the environment can thus also act to reduce poverty and economic inequality. So we see that the objectives of human development and environmental protection are actually interlinked goals. The promotion of human development in poor nations can improve environmental quality while policies to improve the environment can also reduce economic disparities. This suggests the need for a coordinated policy response that considers the linkages between human development and the environment.
