Comments due by March 16, 2019
The environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) is a
hypothesized relationship between various indicators of environmental
degradation and income per capita. In the early stages of economic growth
degradation and pollution increase, but beyond some level of income per capita,
which will vary for different indicators, the trend reverses, so that at high
income levels economic growth leads to environmental improvement. This implies
that the environmental impact indicator is an inverted U-shaped function of
income per capita.
An
example of an estimated EKC is shown in Figure 1. The EKC is named for Kuznets (1955) who
hypothesized that income inequality first rises and then falls as economic
development proceeds.
Figure
1. Environmental Kuznets curve for sulfur emissions.
If the EKC hypothesis were true, then rather
than being a threat to the environment, as claimed by the environmental
movement and associated scientists in the past (e.g., Meadows, Meadows, Randers, & Behrens, 1972),
economic growth would be the means to eventual environmental improvement. This
change in thinking was already underway in the emerging idea of sustainable
economic development promulgated by the World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) in Our
Common Future. The possibility of achieving sustainability without a
significant deviation from business as usual was an obviously enticing prospect
for many––letting humankind “have our cake and eat it”.
Proponents
of the EKC hypothesis argue that
at
higher levels of development, structural change towards information-intensive
industries and services, coupled with increased environmental awareness,
enforcement of environmental regulations, better technology and higher
environmental expenditures, result in leveling off and gradual decline of
environmental degradation.
It
is clear that emissions of many pollutants per unit of output have declined
over time in developed countries with increasingly stringent environmental
regulations and technical innovations. But the mix of residuals has shifted
from sulfur and nitrogen oxides to carbon dioxide and solid waste so that
aggregate waste is still high and per capita waste may not have declined.9 Economic activity is inevitably
environmentally disruptive in some way. Satisfying the material needs of people
requires the use and disturbance of energy flows and materials stocks.
Therefore, an effort to reduce some environmental impacts may just aggravate
other problems.
The
evidence shows that the statistical analysis on which the environmental Kuznets
curve is based is not robust. There is little evidence for a common inverted
U-shaped pathway that countries follow as their income rises. There may be an
inverted U-shaped relation between urban ambient concentrations of some
pollutants and income though this should be tested with more rigorous
time-series or panel data methods. It seems unlikely that the EKC is an
adequate model of emissions or concentrations
With a country's economic growth, the early main pollutant emissions will increase gradually, and the environment quality will decreased. However, after a certain stage, if the economy continues to grow, after certain stage of economic growth, main pollutant emissions would reach its peak, and then decline. In the stage of economic take-off, the proportion of the secondary industry is aggravated, and industrialization and urbanization will bring serious ecological and environmental problems. When the main economic activities shift from the high energy consumption and high pollution industry to the service and IT industries, production pressure on resources and environment will be reduced; then the inverted u-shaped curve appears. I think that there is an interactive relationship between environmental needs and economic development.
ReplyDeleteBefore the Environmental Kuznets Curve, it was presumed that the environment was destroyed at a faster rate by rich, developing countries than by poor countries. Now, the hypothesis is that during the initial stages of economic growth and development, the environment suffers due to increased degradation and pollution. However, past a certain level of GNP per capita, which will differ between countries, economic growth will lead to improvements in the environment. The idea is that higher levels of development paired with increased environmental awareness, environmental regulations, improved technology, and increased environmental expenditures will improve the environment. So, the increased money coming in is then put back into the environment. I have a few problems with this hypothesis. As the blog post stated, we are seeing increased levels of carbon dioxide and solid waste which means that per capita waste may not actually be declining. It has been proven that countries with the highest GDP have the highest levels of carbon dioxide emission. I believe for the EKC to be true, a set of policies need to be put in place to support the hypothesis and ensure that a substantial amount of money is being put back into our economy to improve the environment.
ReplyDeleteBrennan Boudreaux
ReplyDeleteEKC certianly can use American history as a testimony to the U shaped curve. The initial econcomic devolopment came from the industrial period where the environemntal degradation rate hit its peak. More recently with econmic growth still devoloping we are starting to see more technological advances and creations with better systems that are less harmful and in some cases beneficial to the environment. However, other countries that devolop economically much later than a country like the U.S.. The U.S has an oppurtunity to lead by example for other countries that devolop economically much later as i do not believe the world has capacity for every devolping country such as India to make the same dramtaic U curve on the Kuznets curve. With leadership the Kuznets curve can be a thing of the past.
-Brennan Boudreaux
As stated in the conclusion of this post, there may not be enough data to support the Kuznets Curve entirely. Even though there are plenty of developed and wealthy nations, these nations’ investments into the environment have only scratched the surface. The United States for example has only been taking environmental action seriously since roughly the seventies.
ReplyDeleteSome key economic principles do support Kuznets. Technological innovations lead to economic growth. When a country becomes wealthy enough to innovate technology to be cleaner and less wasteful, the economy will benefit. This may lead to a cycle of growth, innovation, growth, innovation, etc.
China has been taking dramatic steps to reduce their pollution outputs. Instead of encouraging technological advancements, however, they’ve been closing business that produce too much pollution. This has actually lead to their economy to slow down. The pollution levels have yet to see any significant shift. This may give some weight to the theory that an increase in wealth leads to a decrease in pollution.
This was certainly an interesting read, with a hypothesis that sounded like it should have stood true. After all it would make a lot of sense to think that developed countries such as the United States, France, or perhaps the United Kingdom would have moved on from industrial based economies to more serviced based ones such as finance or other service industries. Given the service based industries don't really have an environmental impact directly when it comes to things like finance, the main hypothesis in the Kuznets curve would seem to be plausible.
ReplyDeleteWhen observing the US's economic history this can seem to be plausible as well. After all many years ago the US economy was heavily industrial and based largely on manufacturing. But as the country became more wealthy we began to develop more regulations and became more aware of environmental impacts of industry. Though perhaps stories like these inferences are not enough the back up the claims made by the Kuznets Curve.
The environmental Kuznet’s curve is something I have unknowingly been preaching. Much like the cutve states, initially being environmentally conscious will take a toll monetarily but as the situation continues will reverse and work to become a sustainable economic development. This also has its pitfalls due to the inaccuracies in measuring emissions. This will become harmful as the issues with our environment intensifies because the point to start reducing and saving the environment could be much closer than we realize.
ReplyDeleteThe basics of the theory behind the Kuznet's curve does make sense but the fact that the data isn't strong enough to prove its worth can definitely put some things in perspective. I think that there are plenty of scenarios that we have experienced as a country that could prove this curve to be accurate in the short term more so than the long term (that seems to be where the data gets iffy). Even just with economic cycles alone we see that there needs to be loss in order to regain stability. Another thing that is important to note is the fact that no change can be made without small sacrifices and we know that nothing in this world is free. To note a point from the article, Americans expect to be able to have their cake and eat it too. Most of our measurements of economic growth only express the growth in terms of output as opposed to also factoring expenses that are caused by these outputs and future losses that are caused by environmental degradation. The importance of this curve is showing the relativity of sustainability and economic growth, which are not necessarily to go hand in hand. While they can correspond positively to one another, the environment has its limits and the two can only grow together for so long before the real long term sustainability goals start to fade.
ReplyDeleteThe Kuznets curve is an excellent way to see how per capita income affects our environment. It’s beneficial to see how per capita will differ in the future with better technologies being put in place to protect our environment. However, it’s not guaranteed that as the economy rises, our environment will get better. Time will tell, but the curve would be more beneficial if it focused on other factors, such as the technology, government regulation, and much more. It’s interesting to see how the SO2 emissions decreased for South America, North America. But, Asia and Africa increased in S02 emissions. It was perceived before the curve, that countries with less income would create less emissions, but this curve helps us have a different perspective on things and shift our focus.
ReplyDelete-Vianna Konoplin
In theory the Kuznet’s Curve (EKC) is a great way to see how the level of income per capita influences the environment but it fails to take other factors into consideration. The EKC states that when an economy is growing then the environment is being destroyed due to pollution and degradation. But once an economy has reached a certain GNP per capita, the economic growth will actually promote improvements in the environment. In other words, once an economy has made a good amount of money this money is put back into the environment to undo any environmental harm. This differs for every country due to differences in income and development. The curve definitely shows how sustainability can be enforced, but what the EKC fails to show is that most of the damage done to the environment is non easily fixed, and that eliminating one kind of waste leads to another kind. Therefore, the EKC isn’t the greatest way to show how the environment and economy work together, and needs to be adapted to include technological advances and differences in every country.
ReplyDelete-Lilliana Fenner
The common saying of "you can't have your cake and eat it too" is extremely relevant when speaking on the topic of the relationship between the economy and the environment. When using Kuznet's Curve, they were trying to disprove this statement but failed to take into account many different factors that in fact do not show that you can have your cake and eat it too. This EKC discusses how the economy and the environment will eventually grow together and the increasing economy will actually cause improvements with how we treat our ecosystem and environment. When there is enough money in the economy, there will be leftovers enough to bleed over into taking care of our world. That money will be put back into the damages that growing the economy caused. Yet this really depends on what systems of government are in place and the income per capita of each country. Although, there may be a point where if there is more money, there is more opportunity to undo what was done, but some damages cannot be fixed and as stated in the second law of thermodynamics : the more energy we use, the less we have. If we overuse, some energy cannot be recycled. This ignorant approach to solving the lack of care about the environment is extremely undeveloped in reality although semi true. This curve is not the best way to analyze the relationship between our economy and environment because some damages cannot be monetized or predicted. We need to focus on our present and not think it will be solved in the future.
ReplyDelete-Miranda Baldo
Kuznet’s environmental curve is something I have been informed about. Similar to the cutve states, being environmentally conscious will take a toll monetarily but once the situation continues will reverse and work to result to be a sustainable economic development. In addition this has several pitfalls due to the inaccuracies in measuring emissionsThis can potentially result in becoming harmful as the issues with our environment intensifies.
ReplyDeleteBefore reading this blog post, I had no idea what an Environment Kuznets Curve (EKC) was. Countries that are developing and has not started to create industrialization, their environment is not that much damaged. Places like the United States as we can see will be affected more. With the rising demand for technology, I believe this will help increase efforts to protect the environment. We come from a world of the digital age now where everything is computerized.. Handwritten letters are becoming emails. Data entries are being transferred to excel and other programs. Lot of companies that I know are “going green”. They are becoming paperless. Many jobs are being offered to become a data entry person. When I was a records officer, I would get rid of the use of paper just by inputting all the information on the computer. I think this can be great for developed countries. For developing countries, we would need to find a system for them. It can be expensive for them to purchase the technology needed. I personally do not feel like this curve is all that accurate. I feel like it doesn’t touch on points as to what accurately pinpoint stability in the economy with environmental efforts.
ReplyDelete