The case for keeping people poor because it's good for the planet is economically and morally bankrupt.
By Doug Sheridan
The case for keeping people poor because it's good for the planet is economically and morally bankrupt.
Doug Sheridan
Charles Wheelan writes in his book Naked Economics, the notion that economic development is inherently bad for the environment is highly suspect. Sure, in the short run just about any economic activity generates waste—if we produce more, we will pollute more. But it's also true that as we get richer, we pay more attention to the environment.
Consider this, in what year did air quality in London—the city for which we have the best long-term pollution data—reach its worst level ever... 1890, 1920, 1975, 1998 or 2015? The answer is 1890. In fact, London's current air quality is better than at any time since 1585.
None of this should come as a surprise, as there is nothing particularly "clean" about cooking over an open wood- or coal-burning fire, as was done pervasively prior to the turn of the last century. Nor is wading through the wafts of both human and animal waste in the streets. Still, for many, it's a shocker.
The reason London is cleaner today, despite all the city traffic and commerce, is that environmental quality is a luxury good—that is, we place more value on it as we get richer. And herein lies one of the concatenating benefits of globalization—trade makes countries richer, and richer countries care more about environmental quality. That's because they have the resources at their disposal to protect it.
Critics of economic growth and trade have alleged that allowing individual countries to make their own environmental decisions will lead to a "race to the bottom" in which poor countries compete for business by despoiling their environments. It hasn't happened.
In fact, as the World Bank recently concluded after six years of study, "Pollution havens—developing countries that provide a permanent home to dirty industries—have failed to materialize. Instead, poorer nations and communities are acting to reduce pollution because they have decided that the benefits of abatement outweigh the costs."
For example, consider that many developing nations are sending more of their citizens to university—while extending basic education more widely, too. Education is making these countries richer. As they get richer, they use more energy. So, should we ban education? Clearly not.
Our Take: The case for keeping people poor because it's good for the planet is economically and morally bankrupt. The answer to the carbon emissions problem is to promote economic growth in ways that allow countries to accumulate the wealth needed to limit environmental damage. We already know the approach works. So spread the success.
It is a good piece to read, I would add one note. Carbon is NOT an issue. CO2 right now is roughly 400ppm, at 250ppm plants die. Think about that.