Environmental Impact of Economic Growth

Economic growth means an increase in real output (real GDP). Therefore, with increased output and consumption we are likely to see costs imposed on the environment. The environmental impact of economic growth includes the increased consumption of non-renewable resources, higher levels of pollution, global warming and the potential loss of environmental habitats.

Environmental Impact of Economic Growth How rising output affects the environment

Pollution Higher production increases air pollution (CO₂, NOx, particulates),	Climate Change Economic growth raises fossil fuel use, increasing greenhouse gas emissions and contributing to global warming and extreme weather.
Loss of Biodiversity Expansion of farming, mining and urban areas destroys habitats, leading to species decline and ecosystem damage.	Resource Depletion Faster growth increases use of non-renewable resources such as fossil fuels, minerals and freshwater, risking long-term shortages.
Evaluation In early stages of development, growth often worsens environmental damage. At higher income levels, cleaner technology and regulation may reduce pollution

However, not all forms of economic growth cause damage to the environment. With rising real incomes, individuals have a greater ability to devote resources to protecting the environment and mitigate the harmful effects of pollution. Also, economic growth caused by improved technology can enable higher output with less pollution.

Classic trade-off between economic growth and environmental resources

This PPF curve shows a trade-off between non-renewable resources and consumption. As we increase consumption, the opportunity cost implies a lower stock of non-renewable resources.

For example, the pace of global economic growth in the past century has led to a decline in the availability of natural resources such as forests (cut down for agriculture/demand for wood)

• A decline in sources of oil/coal/gas
• Loss of fishing stocks – due to overfishing
• Loss of species diversity – damage to natural resources has led to species extinction.

External costs of economic growth

1. Pollution

Increased consumption of fossil fuels can lead to immediate problems such as poor air quality and soot, (London smogs of the 1950s). Some of the worst problems of burning fossil fuels have been mitigated by Clean Air Acts – which limit the burning of coal in city centres. Showing that economic growth can be consistent with reducing a certain type of pollution. There has been an increase in many types of pollution

• • Tiny particles like PM2.5 and PM10 — which come from combustion, wildfires, and road “non-exhaust” sources (tyre/brake wear and dust) — have shown increases in some regions or from certain sources.
  • Microplastics are increasingly found in air, water and soils. Airborne microplastic particles pose new human health risks and have been linked to cancers.
  • Synthetic chemicals like phthalates, bisphenols, pesticides and PFAS (“forever chemicals”) are increasingly present in food systems and ecosystems and linked to health risks such as cancer and neurodegenerative diseases
  • Nitrous Oxides – Global NOx emissions have generally risen over the past 50 years alongside economic and industrial growth, driven by fossil fuel combustion — particularly in rapidly developing economies
  • Methane – levels 2.5 times higher than pre-industrial age. Intensive farming causing big rise in gas.

2. Global Warming/Co2 emissions

While smogs were a very clear and obvious danger, the effects of increased CO2 emissions are less immediately obvious and therefore there is less incentive for policymakers to tackle. Scientists state the accumulation of CO2 emissions have contributed to global warming and more volatile weather. All this suggests economic growth is increasing long-term environmental costs – not just for the present moment, but future generations.

• This graph shows total CO2 emissions globally. It shows a tripling of CO2 emission between 1960 and 2018. The total emissions are higher because of population growth and economic growth. 1960 to 2020 was a period of strong economic growth and despite the development of new technologies, has failed to halt the rise.

In recent years, China’s rapid industrialisation has caused a further surge in Co2 emission.

• The. Stern Review into global warming stated that If we do nothing, global warming could reduce global GDP by at least 5% per year, and possibly up to 20% or more in the worst scenarios.
• Global warming leads to rising sea levels, volatile weather patterns and could cause significant economic costs.Soil erosion. Deforestation resulting from economic development damages soil and makes areas more prone to drought.
• Mitigation ≈ 1% of GDP per year Doing nothing could cost ≥ 5–20% of GDP per year. But, problem that many costs and benefits are in the future.

3. Damage to nature

Air/land/water pollution causes health problems and can damage the productivity of land and seas.

Oil spill which is highly damaging to wildlife

4. Loss of biodiversity.

Economic growth leads to resource depletion and loss of biodiversity. This could harm future ‘carrying capacity of ecological systems’ for the economy. As economies expand, land is cleared for agriculture, housing, roads and industry, destroying or fragmenting habitats and reducing the space available for wildlife. Growth also raises energy use, mining and resource extraction, which degrade forests, wetlands and coral reefs. In addition, higher incomes increase demand for meat, timber and consumer goods, accelerating deforestation and overfishing. Since 1970, around 17% of the Amazon rainforest has been lost. There is uncertainty about the extent of this cost as the benefit of lost genetic maps may never be known.

5. Long-term toxins.

Economic growth creates long-term waste and toxins, which may have unknown consequences. For example, economic growth has led to increased use of plastic, which when disposed of do not degrade. So there is an ever-increasing stock of plastic in the seas and environment – which is both unsightly but also damaging to wildlife.

6. Loss of agricultural land

Economic growth can lead to a loss of agricultural land as expanding cities, housing, roads and industrial estates spread onto farmland (urban sprawl). As populations grow and incomes rise, demand for infrastructure and commercial development increases, often making it more profitable to convert farmland into residential or industrial use. Also, with economic growth demand usually shifts from more vegetarian diet to more meat/dairy based farming, which is more intensive use of soil.

In addition, some growth-related activities reduce the quality of land rather than converting it directly. Intensive farming, over-use of chemicals, soil erosion and climate change can degrade soils, making land less productive or unusable for agriculture. Together, land conversion and land degradation reduce the amount of viable agricultural land and can threaten long-term food security.

7. Smog in Cities

In India, rapid economic growth and urbanisation have increased air and water pollution. Major cities such as Delhi regularly experience dangerous smog caused by vehicle emissions, coal-fired power stations and construction activity. Rivers like the Ganges have become heavily polluted from industrial waste and untreated sewage, creating health costs, damaging ecosystems and reducing quality of life despite rising GDP.

U-Shaped curve for economic growth and the environment

One theory of economic growth and the environment is that up to a certain point economic growth worsens the environment, but after that the move to a post-industrial economy – it leads to a better environment. This is known as the Kuznets Curve.

For example – since 1980, the UK and the US have reduced CO2 emission. This is partly due to deindustrialisation, also partly due to shifting from coal production to more renewables and use of natural gas which reduce Co2.

Another example – In early days of growth, economies tend to burn coal/wood – which cause obvious pollution.

Does growth really help environment?

But, with higher incomes, an economy can promote cleaner technology which limits this air pollution. However, in a paper “Economic growth and carrying capacity” by Kenneth Arrow et al. they caution about this simplistic u-shape. As the authors state:

“Where the environmental costs of economic activity are home by the poor, by future generation, or by other countries, the incentives to correct the problem are likely to be weak”

1. It may be true there is a Kuznets curve for some types of visible pollutants, but it is less true of more diffuse and less visible pollutants. (like CO2)
2. The U-shaped maybe true of pollutants, but not the stock of natural resources; economic growth does not reverse the trend to consume and reduce the quantity of non-renewable resources.
3. Reducing pollution in one country may lead to the outsourcing of pollution to another, e.g. we import coal from developing economies, effectively exporting our rubbish for recycling and disposal elsewhere.
4. Environmental policies tend to deal with pressing issues at hand but ignore future intergenerational problems.

Other models of a link between economic growth and environment

Limits Theory

This suggests that economic growth will damage the environment, and damage will itself start to act as a brake on growth and will force economies to deal with economic damage. In other words, the environment will force us to look after it. For example, if we run down natural resources, their price will rise and this will create an incentive to find alternatives.

New toxins

This is more pessimistic suggesting that economic growth leads to an ever-increasing range of toxic output and problems, some issues may get solved, but they are outweighed by newer and more pressing problems which are difficult if impossible to overturn.

This model has no faith that the free-market will solve the problem because there is no ownership of air quality and many of the effects are piling up on future generations; these future effects cannot be dealt with by the current price mechanism.

Race to the bottom

This suggests that in the early stages of economic growth, there is little concern about the environment and often countries undermined environmental standards to gain a competitive advantage – the incentive to free-ride on others’ efforts. However, as the environment increasingly worsens, it will reluctantly force economies to reduce the worst effects of environmental damage. This will slow down environmental degradation but not reverse past trends.

Economic growth without environmental damage

Some ecologists argue economic growth invariably leads to environmental damage. However, there are economists who argue that economic growth can be consistent with a stable environment and even improvement in the environmental impact. This will involve

• A shift from non-renewables to renewables A recent report suggests that renewable energy is becoming cheaper than more damaging forms of energy production such as burning coal and in 2018 – this has led to a 39% drop in new construction starts from 2017, and an 84% drop since 2015.
• Social cost pricing. If economic growth causes external costs, economists state it is socially efficient to include the external cost in the price (e.g. carbon tax). If the tax equals the full external cost, it will lead to a socially efficient outcome and create a strong incentive to promote growth that minimises external costs.
• Treat the environment as a public good. Environmental policy which protects the environment, through regulations, government ownership and limits on external costs can, in theory, enable economic growth to be based on protection of the environmental resource.
• Technological development. It is possible to replace cars running on petrol with cars running on electricity from renewable sources. This enables an increase in output, but also a reduction in the environmental impact. There are numerous possible technological developments which can enable greater efficiency, lower costs and less environmental damage.
• Include quality of life and environmental indicators in economic statistics. Rather than targetting GDP, environmental economists argue we should target a wider range of living standards + living standards + environmental indicators. (e.g. Genuine Progress Indicators GPI)

Source: Ida Kubiszewski et al, “Beyond GDP: Measuring and Achieving Global Genuine Progress,” Ecological Economics, 93, (2013).

Related

• Environmental sustainability
• Economics of Global Warming

About The Author

Tejvan Pettinger

Tejvan Pettinger. Author of “Cracking Economics” “What Would Keynes Do?” – studied PPE Oxford University (1995-99) and works as an economics teacher and writer.

See author's posts