Environmental Kuznets curves—real progress or passing the buck ...
Environmental Kuznets curves—real progress or passing the buck ... Environmental Kuznets curves—real progress or passing the buck ...
188 D.S. Rothman / Ecological Economics 25 (1998) 177–194 Fig. 5. Net pollution exports—sulfur dioxide 1987 (Antweiler, 1996). versus income levels, and neither study finds support for the EKC hypothesis. de Bruyn and Opschoor (1997) briefly discuss trade and import substitution, but do not incorporate it into their analysis. 5. Better measures of environmental impact If one accepts the arguments to this point, the question then arises—what are appropriate, or at least better, measures of environmental impact? Ekins (1997) examines an aggregate indicator developed by the OECD which includes: (1) CO 2 , SO 2 ,NO x emissions per capita; (2) water abstraction per capita; (3) percentage of population with sewage treatment; (4) protected areas as a percentage of total area; (5) imports of tropical timber and cork; (6) threatened species of mammals and birds as a percentage of all such species in the country; (7) generation of municipal solid waste per capita; (8) energy intensity (primary energy per unit of GDP); (9) private road transport (passenger kilometers in private vehicles per capita); and (10) nitrate fertilizer application per km 2 of arable land and permanent cropland. As might be expected, examining the relationship between this indicator and income levels, Ekins finds no support for the EKC hypothesis. Is it possible to go further to more explicitly and completely link a measure of environmental impact to consumption? The study has presented various data on consumption and the net trade. These data lend no support to the EKC hypothesis when examined as a function of income level. They make no adjustment, however, for differences in the ways in which these goods and services are produced, transported, used and ultimately disposed of in different countries and over time. With an increasingly globalized economy, it could be argued that the inter-country differences are small enough as to be insignificant. Even if this were to be accepted, though, there would still be the question of how the environmental impacts have changed over time and how they differ across goods, services and resources, so
D.S. Rothman / Ecological Economics 25 (1998) 177–194 189 Fig. 6. Net resource depletion 1985 (Atkinson and Hamilton, 1996). as to allow aggregation across different consumption bundles. Determining the environmental impact for a particular good, service, or resource is an exceedingly difficult task. Of key importance here is the inclusion of embodied impacts that arise from production, transportation and disposal (Adriaanse et al., 1997). There has been relatively little work in this area other than on life-cycle energy use (Robinson, 1990; OECD and IEA, 1992). Wyckoff and Roop (1994) study of embodied carbon and Chapman (1991) work on copper in automobiles provide examples that look beyond energy use. Several recent efforts have been, and continue to be made to conceptually and empirically broaden this work to develop aggregate measures of environmental impact and/or resource requirements of various lifestyles. These include: ecotoxicity (Ayres and Marinas, 1995); environmental utilization space (Opschoor, 1992); ecological footprints/appropriated carrying capacity (EF/ ACC) (Rees and Wackernagel, 1994); material intensity per unit service (MIPS) (Schmidt-Bleek, 1993); the sustainable process index (Krotscheck and Narodoslawsky, 1996); and total material requirements (Adriaanse et al., 1997). Each approach has its own nuances, but basically all are attempts to provide a physical measure of environmental impact from the perspective of achieving sustainability by not drawing down stocks of natural capital in order to meet current consumption. The empirical work using these measures is in its infancy and will undoubtedly require refinement. However, it should be possible to use these, even in their present incarnations, to provide more defensible indications of the relationship between economic development and environmental impact. The empirical work to date, although limited and arguably conservative in its estimates of human impacts on the Earth, raises a number of serious concerns. Rees (1996) estimates that to sustainably support the present world population,
- Page 1 and 2: Ecological Economics 25 (1998) 177-
- Page 3 and 4: D.S. Rothman / Ecological Economics
- Page 5 and 6: D.S. Rothman / Ecological Economics
- Page 7 and 8: D.S. Rothman / Ecological Economics
- Page 9 and 10: D.S. Rothman / Ecological Economics
- Page 11: D.S. Rothman / Ecological Economics
- Page 15 and 16: D.S. Rothman / Ecological Economics
- Page 17 and 18: D.S. Rothman / Ecological Economics
D.S. Rothman / Ecological Economics 25 (1998) 177–194 189<br />
Fig. 6. Net resource depletion 1985 (Atkinson and Hamilton, 1996).<br />
as to allow aggregation across different consumption<br />
bundles.<br />
Determining <strong>the</strong> environmental impact f<strong>or</strong> a<br />
particular good, service, <strong>or</strong> resource is an exceedingly<br />
difficult task. Of key imp<strong>or</strong>tance here is <strong>the</strong><br />
inclusion of embodied impacts that arise from<br />
production, transp<strong>or</strong>tation and disposal (Adriaanse<br />
et al., 1997). There has been relatively little<br />
w<strong>or</strong>k in this area o<strong>the</strong>r than on life-cycle energy<br />
use (Robinson, 1990; OECD and IEA, 1992).<br />
Wyckoff and Roop (1994) study of embodied<br />
carbon and Chapman (1991) w<strong>or</strong>k on copper in<br />
automobiles provide examples that look beyond<br />
energy use.<br />
Several recent eff<strong>or</strong>ts have been, and continue<br />
to be made to conceptually and empirically<br />
broaden this w<strong>or</strong>k to develop aggregate measures<br />
of environmental impact and/<strong>or</strong> resource requirements<br />
of various lifestyles. These include: ecotoxicity<br />
(Ayres and Marinas, 1995); environmental<br />
utilization space (Opscho<strong>or</strong>, 1992); ecological<br />
footprints/appropriated carrying capacity (EF/<br />
ACC) (Rees and Wackernagel, 1994); material<br />
intensity per unit service (MIPS) (Schmidt-Bleek,<br />
1993); <strong>the</strong> sustainable process index (Krotscheck<br />
and Narodoslawsky, 1996); and total material<br />
requirements (Adriaanse et al., 1997). Each approach<br />
has its own nuances, but basically all are<br />
attempts to provide a physical measure of environmental<br />
impact from <strong>the</strong> perspective of achieving<br />
sustainability by not drawing down stocks of<br />
natural capital in <strong>or</strong>der to meet current<br />
consumption.<br />
The empirical w<strong>or</strong>k using <strong>the</strong>se measures is in<br />
its infancy and will undoubtedly require refinement.<br />
However, it should be possible to use <strong>the</strong>se,<br />
even in <strong>the</strong>ir present incarnations, to provide<br />
m<strong>or</strong>e defensible indications of <strong>the</strong> relationship<br />
between economic development and environmental<br />
impact. The empirical w<strong>or</strong>k to date, although<br />
limited and arguably conservative in its estimates<br />
of human impacts on <strong>the</strong> Earth, raises a number<br />
of serious concerns. Rees (1996) estimates that to<br />
sustainably supp<strong>or</strong>t <strong>the</strong> present w<strong>or</strong>ld population,
Change language