Economic Growth & Environmental Crises
Introduction
Economic growth connotes an increase in the total productivity of an economy. Productivity refers to the conversion of various production factors or resources into consumable commodities and utilities. Moreover, for every production process, there are inputs and outputs. Not all the outputs are consumable. Some outputs are given out as wastes that are disposed to the environment. The continuous layout of waste products from economic production degrades the environment, thereby undermining the environment’s viability and sustainability. The situation creates an unreconciled relationship between economic growth and environmental crisis. While some views believe that economic growth can be harmonized to protect the environment, contrary views argue economic growth is the primary cause of environmental degradation. The views for economic growth viability for environmental conservation proposes sustainable production mechanisms through the handling of the environment as a public good, social cost pricing, and renewable production. However, more instances attaining viable sustainability in economic growth are impractical due to the economic maxima ideology of economic growth as the measure of global progress. Therefore, under such assumptions, economic growth is not necessary to avoid potential future Environmental crises owing to our finite world, the payoff of increasing GDP, and the endangering factor of technological improvement.
Economic growth is a measure of an economy’s progress. The development process tests the ability of an economy or nation to be self-sustainable through continuous production. It is “an increase in the production of economic goods and services, compared from one period to another” (Fyliuk et al., 55). Various underlying elements propagate the increase in aggregate production for an economy. Firstly, an increase in the number of physical capital goods stimulates an economy’s economic growth by facilitating labor productivity (Fyliuk et al., 58). Secondly, technological enhancement promotes productivity by raising the efficiency of the production factors utilized (Fyliuk et al., 58). Thirdly, the growing labor force also inspires economic growth on the deposition of productive skills that increases production output (Fyliuk et al., 58). Lastly, human capital’s developmental effect propagates the productive feasibility of an economy by enhancing workers’ efficiency and productivity. Thus, economic growth measures the enhancement of the production of goods and services in an economy using various production factors.
On the other hand, the environmental crisis is a measure of failed environmental conservation due to unsustainable or uncontrolled economic growth processes. The case questions the responsibility of various producers and economies in that their quest for increased development and productive satisfaction does not undermine resource protection. In most cases, economic production has proven to exhaust natural resources and their safety at the expense of satisfying the market. While our current society enjoys the proceeds of post-modernism, such as technological advancements and innovations, the environment is exposed to unwanted outputs from the production processes. The negative effects of production have caused numerous calls to reinvent economic growth to ensure a safe, productive mechanism. Various nations have talent initiative to prove that little economic incentives would be an instrument in integrating safe production to the environment through sustainable growth. Sustainable growth and development of the globe are one of the targets of the United Nations (Le 45). Thus, sustainable development champions for the inferior advantage of economic growth to use innovation and less degrading production mechanisms.
The study finds a substantive reason to believe that economic growth is unnecessary to avoid a future environmental crisis. The reasons prove the unreliability of economic growth and its contribution to environmental degradation due to producers and environmental conservatives’ conflicting interests. In essence, this discussion’s pros are views that environmental conservation is a cost and not a factor of production, therefore avoided by producers. The first is the view that the world is finite yet economic growth fundamentally means the utilization of resources to facilitate production, which translates to a concern for the environment’s future state. While the earth supports life owing to natural resources, entities face the question of choice since the valuable elements lack the element of infinity. Thus, resources’ limitation puts pressure on economic production to overlook essential conservative measures and their sustainability. The position is worsened by competition among producers for the few resources available. The second view looks at the trade-off between the universe and economic growth. Economic growth expands the development of an economy, which signifies an economy’s ability to self-sustain due to increased production measured in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (Ahlborn and Schweickert 380). However, the rise in GDP counters payoff for the environment and utilization of materials for production and energy that creates environmental unsustainability. The last support decision looks at technological advancements and innovations as fundamental dangers to environment conservation. Most technological innovations used to enhance economic growth have consistently ignored environmental conservation. The efficiency of production is focused on economic growth and increased consumption of material produced while creating fatal effects on the environment, thereby beating the “idealness” approach to modern technological advancement. Therefore, the finite world, the payoff of increasing GDP, and the endangering factor of technological improvement show how economic growth is unnecessary for avoiding potential future environmental crises.
However, a contrary opinion supports that economic growth is still necessary to avoid a future environmental crisis. The popular ideologies support this view for sustainable production that advocates treating the environment as a public good. The ideology supports a public interest in protecting the environment at all levels of economic production and growth. The second point acknowledges the social pricing theory to use economic growth to avoid an environmental crisis. The views require setting prices for the environment alongside production to ensure that the negative effect of economic growth on the environment is paid for. The last point is the replacement of nonrenewable production mechanism with renewable production. Renewable production ensures that only inexhaustible energies and resources are used in economic production to prevent further degradation of the world and its resources. Nonetheless, these points are not fully practiced worldwide, thereby giving the void factors of economic production to be more conspicuous and effective on environmental degradation than the conservative measures.
Pro Arguments
Environmentalists’ greatest concern is the economic negligence driven by the “growth for the sake of growth” ideology. The ideology shows the eminent commitment of producers to economic growth despite the vast environmental degradation effect of their conduct. The ideology is the main credo for nations, corporations, and regional blocks founded on the premise of promoting economic growth and individual livelihood. In their views, economic growth is presented as the right tool to solve various world problems like inequality, poverty, infrastructures, education, health, natural resources’ sustainability, and many others. While the economists present economic growth as the primary element of sustainability, they overlook the environmentally conscious and the exhaustion of natural resources used in economic development. Thus, the left-wing group gives a new look into the economic growth incentives in explaining why economic growth is not a solution to world problems, including the avoidance of environmental crisis. The most uncomfortable truth about economic growth thought is that it is environmentally unsustainable. Economic growth is also neither socially nor legally sustainable as the ideal course for promoting equality. In most cases, it is associated with global disagreements and wars. Thus, the left-wing question that this study adopts in campaigning for a non-economic growth society is how the environment can be managed without relying on economic growth as presented by the infinite world, trade-off, and technological advancement positions.
The Infinite World
The infinite world ideology proves the thought that there is no everlasting exponential growth. The ideology presents an economy as a physical element rather than the metaphysical view held by some economists. This assumption is derived from the thought that most of the economic material and natural resources used in production are exhaustible. The perception is supported by social metabolism that finds exhaustibility in material and energy flow in an economy. Moreover, the input side of the materials into the economic chain is found to be limited. Such include natural sources of energy like oil and phosphorus. The economic use of the resources has forced humanity into despair and trespass of other people’s boundaries. Some of the activities in pursuit of economic resources are associated with an increase in negative climatic change with ecosystems’ least capacity. Besides, economic growth is also currently challenged with the existence of biophysical limits due to the excessive consumption of energy used in production. Even though there are generative changes in adopting sustainable economic production, the use of exhaustible materials and resources are still the main source of energy and raw material.
The infinite world also proves the economic growth’s promotion of environmental crisis in its course to raise the quality of life. Rather than improving the sustainable way of life for the whole world, economic growth has proven the unfortunate conversion of the natural resources’ surviving remnants. In the course of production, a large chunk of the forest has been cleared, more plants and animals species have disappeared than those created during production. As such, the current production activities of the world are defined by the limits to growth theory, with the least exception of the most materials and resources used in production (Gardner 123). Thus, economic growth is continuing to isolate and exhaust natural resources across the world. From energy to raw material, the utilization of the resources can simply be defined as the depletion and degradation of the resources from which the materials are extracted. The limitation to growth theory further acknowledges the failure of economic growth to create or regenerate most of the materials and resources used in production. With the heist of profitability and better livelihood, the entire process of production is hell-bent on stakeholder’s interest that greatly contributes to the environmental crisis. Even with the incited faces of environmental conservation included in corporations and nations’ growth agendas, world limit factors still prove irresponsibility of economic growth in environmental conservation. Thus, under the infinite world, economic growth is not necessary to avoid a future environmental crisis.
The Trade-off between the Universe and Economic Growth
The decoupling of the universe and economic growth only necessitates historical failure to attain balance. An increase in resource utilization per GDP is an inverse measure of the degradation of the resource deposits, which is a fall in the value of the universe through resource depletion (Ahlborn and Schweickert 380). Thus, there is no absolute decoupling of the elements, which is a key factor of sustainability. The current trade-off between the universe and economic growth is skewed towards a decline in environmental resources through economic production and consumption.
There is also the unique reservation in the rare occurrences of absolute harmonization of resources. During economic recessions, major economies experience absolute dematerialization that can be perceived as a structural absolute decoupling once in a while. However, neither of the situations considers that trade as an element of economic growth should be applied to achieve the externalization of environmental crisis. Besides, the current economic practices involving the trade-off between the universe and economic production cannot be circular. This is due to various externalities in production, such as the inability to fully recycle energy and materials extracted from the universe. With more than half of the materials extracted from the universe being used in energy-related production, only a smaller portion can be recycled and reused elsewhere. Most of the materials extracted are disposed of after use, thereby posing the economic growth side of the balance as incompatible with environmental sustainability. As a result, the economic growth indicators measured in GDP show the gain in the economy but not substantiated in negative environmental impact (Ahlborn and Schweickert 380). Thus, GDP as a measure of the universe’s payoff to economic growth also indicates economic growth failure to prevent a future environmental crisis.
Technological Advancement and Innovation
Technological development and innovation are perceived as game changers in economic growth, and their use should be a compliment in environmental conservation. However, the wide reliance on technology does not show substantial evidence on greater contribution to environmental conservation than economic growth. Moreover, technological innovations have proven very slow to reverse environmental crises such as climatic change. Technological advancement and innovation also create a rebound effect by enhancing production efficiency. The economic producers have taken advantage of this ideology by realigning their production to be more efficient since the higher ether efficiency level, the higher the consumption.
The technological compliance and innovation are also not a full-proof solution to the environmental crisis through green technology and ecosystems. Most of the technology-driven innovations meant to prevent environmental crises are not as sufficient as they are in economic growth. For instance, renewable energy gives low net energy. The low energy return on investment implies more utilization of the natural resources used as raw material. The omission is far lower than fossil fuel that is mostly used in economic growth. Thus, the overreliance on technological advancement and innovation as a modern production factor in production only works to the better interest of economic growth and not prevention of environmental crisis.
Con Argument
There are also considerable views to show that economic growth is necessary to avoid a future potential environmental crisis. The position is supported by arguments that environmental conservation can be achieved alongside economic growth. Such include factors like announcing the environment as a public good, social cost pricing, and promotion of renewable production.
Handling of the Environment as a Public Good
Privatization remains the main cause of environmental degradation. Private producers are the largest contributors to environmental waste due to profit-driven purposes and larger quantities across economies. Most nations and corporations are in an endless struggle for the few resources hence overlooking the necessary interest of environmental conservation and sustainability. The presentation of the larger environment to which resources are extracted, and production carried out as a public good suppresses the individual fight for the resources. The method has ensured that private economic growth partners are controlled on their use and disposal of the natural environment. The method further creates a centralized approach to the environment as a common platform for economic growth instead of being the private asset used at the individual discretion of a few people. Thus, treating the environment as a public good set an absolute control on the control of economic growth as a necessary tool to avoid a future environmental crisis.
The identity of the environment as a public good confirms its use for the public interest. Where the majority of the modern public is more environmentally conscious, they ensure that the few resources available are only used for purposes that suit everyone. The method also builds a unique environmental attitude and habit in favor of environmental conservation (Owen, Ann, and Videras 23). Such include posing taxes on public use of resources to control its use. The actions influence the nature and purpose of environmental factors used, thereby avoiding future environmental crises.
Social Cost Pricing
Putting a price on the environment ensures that businesses and general economic growth are achieved under full consideration of negative production effects on the environment. The current and future environmental degradation occurs due to economies’ failure to assign a value to the environment even though the environment is the source of materials and resources used on economic growth. Moreover, because the natural resources extracted from the environment are mainly free or underpriced, they are overused and uncontrolled, leading to exhaustion. Some of the resources are also used for self-gain by profit-seekers who overlook the general environmental or universal benefit.
However, tagging prices on the environment’s value helps to control the way resources are used and pollution created on the environment. As such, putting prices on the environment incorporates sustainability into economic utilization of the environment and its factors of production (Beder 53). This method ensures that producers are charged for the effects they pose on the environment, thereby controlling their production budget and utilization of the natural resources. The cost-benefit method supports this motive by building economic growth on sustainable decisions rather than profitability. This implies that the higher natural resources used from the environment, the higher cost of the environment he pays. Thus, the environment’s pricing is a method of ensuring that economic growth is necessarily used to avoid a future environmental crisis.
Renewable Production
Renewable production is the latest call for environmental conservation. Through various production methods, renewable production ensures that goods/services are sustainable. Production methods like green technology ensure production is undertaken in a sustainable manner and environment. With various adjustments in economic growth, most economies have adopted the green technology initiative on economic development. Thus, the sustainable development championed in renewable production prioritizes environmental conservation as a partner and critical production factor. Though coupled with little challenges, this method controls the use of raw material, thereby setting precedence on future environmental guidance.
Conclusion
The study proves that economic growth is not necessary to avoid future environmental crises. Economic growth is marred with profitability objective that makes the developers focus on the economic gain instead of environmental conservation. The infinite world theory shows how natural resources’ exhaustion replicates the exhaustion of economic growth that further exposes its future failure to ensure sustainable development. While economists can argue that resources are sufficient to support future environment conservation, the high extraction depletes the resources that have become insufficient and absolute in the environment. Technological advancement and innovation have also catalyzed economic growth instead of providing a solution to the environmental crisis. Technology enhances the efficiency and productivity of production factors, thereby undermining the corrective measure of environmental conservation. The view is also supported by the trade-off between the universe and economic growth that works in favor of economic growth as opposed to striking an absolute balance between the two factors. The amount of production harnessed from natural resources is a payoff on economic growth. Thus, there is the least evidence to prove that economic growth can prevent a future environmental crisis.
However, a pessimistic view supports the assumption that economic growth is necessary to avoid a future environmental crisis. The position is supported by listing of the environment as a public good. Handling the environment as a public good takes away the privatization notion that makes producers fight for insufficient resources and overuse them in production. The public entity focus gives environmental conservation and rights to everyone, thereby forcing a balanced use of the natural resources and materials available. The pricing of the environment closely supports the assumption. Setting value or price on the environment includes the cost of environmental degradation, thereby ensuring that every use of the environment for economic growth is paid for. The value is paid in social benefit-cost and other monetary methods to control excessive use of the environment. Besides, there is renewable production that creates an inexhaustible use of natural resources. Rather than stressing the insufficient resources available, renewable production creates a post-change use of the few resources available sufficiently. Thus, the listing of the environment as a public good, pricing of the environment, and renewable production tend to prove the necessity of economic growth to avoid a future environmental crisis.
The pro decisions that support the invalidity of economic growth in preventing future environmental crises are more valid than the contrary arguments. There are more reasons to believe that economic growth is centered on profitability and increased livelihood as opposed to preventing environmental crisis. Besides, the consenting views have also practically proven to be insufficient. While most environmental factors like land and natural resources have been listed as public goods, their uncontrolled use has still been experienced. Neither does the pricing of the environment, nor renewable production reduced exhaustion of the environment for economic gain. For example, climate change is the greatest modern environmental struggle associated with economic growth factors. While the three dissenting views used to curb climate change, the economic incentives of growth have done little to achieve these objectives, thereby proving the unreconciled economic interest that supersedes the prevention of future environmental crises. Thus, there is more evidence to support the assumption that economic growth overrides environmental conservation, thereby holding the view that economic growth is not necessary to avoid a future environmental crisis.
Work Cited
Ahlborn, Markus, and Rainer Schweickert. “Public Debt and Economic Growth – Economic Systems Matter.” International Economics and Economic Policy, vol. 15, no. 2, 2018, pp. 373-403.
Beder, Sharon. “Economy and environment: competitors or partners.” Pacific Ecologist 3.3 (2002): 50-56. https://documents.uow.edu.au/~sharonb/pacific2.html
Fyliuk, Halyna, Ihor Honchar, and Vasylyna Kolosha. “The Interrelation between Economic Growth and National Economic Competitiveness: The Case of Ukraine.” Journal of Competitiveness, vol. 11, no. 3, 2019, pp. 53–69.
Gardner, Toby. “Limits to growth?–A perspective on the perpetual debate.” Environmental Sciences 1.2 (2004): 121-138. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/15693430512331342592
Le, Hoang P. “Globalization, Financial Development, and Environmental Degradation in the Presence of Environmental Kuznets Curve: Evidence from ASEAN-5 Countries.” International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, vol. 9, no. 2, 2019, pp. 40-50.
Owen, Ann L., and Julio Videras. “Civic cooperation, pro-environment attitudes, and behavioral intentions.” Ecological Economics 58.4 (2006): 814-829. https://academics.hamilton.edu/economics/jvideras/Civic%20cooperation,%20attitudes%20and%20intentions.pdf