Presented by Brian Wolff, Ph.D., Faculty in Biology This Friday, November 6th, from noon – 12:50 p.m.
Room C1095
Abstract:
Simon Kuznets won the Nobel Prize in 1971 for his work relating economic growth and development to changing social conditions. Among the many fruits of his labor is Kuznets’ environmental curve, which depicts the hypothetical relationship between environmental quality and economic growth. Proponents of Kuznets’ curve often claim we can grow our way out of our environmental problems. This hypothesis is implied, for example, in President George W. Bush’s claim that economic growth is the solution, not the problem with respect to global warming. I will discuss Kuznets’ environmental curve as it relates to one measure of environmental quality - avian diversity.
Background:
Brian Wolff earned his M.S. in Environmental Biology at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, and his Ph.D. in Conservation Biology at the University of Minnesota. He has been teaching biology, environmental biology, and ecology at the University of Minnesota and Normandale Community College since 1994. He is the author of several scholarly papers on topics ranging from acidic precipitation and agriculturally-driven environmental issues to taxonomy and utilitarian environmental ethics. Brian commonly describes himself as a theoretical ecologist, with an eclectic interest in environmental ethics and economics. He has been studying birds and recording his observations in Minnesota since 1977.
This site offers me a welcome opportunity to thank everyone who attended my presentation. Erin and Maran, thank you, in particular, for inviting me to participate in the colloquium.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed the conversations that took place after my presentation and I’ve been thinking about the following question:
"The growth curves used in your model imply that the cost of environmental damage could eventually equal, or even exceed, GNP. Does this make sense and what are the implications?"
I’m pleased there was a mathematician in the audience! I never pushed my model far enough to see the above-noted implications for myself.
In 1997, Robert Costanza, et al. published a widely-cited paper: The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital (NATURE * VOL 387 * 15 MAY 1997). According to the authors, the value of 17 goods and services provided by functioning ecosystems exceeds, perhaps by a factor of 3, the value of all the goods and services created by human activities (i.e., global GDP). This finding suggests it is possible, at least in theory, to reach a point where the environmental costs of continued economic growth match or exceed the value of the goods and services produced by the global economy.
I believe reaching the breakeven point is a real possibility, and that the implications should be taken seriously. If such a point were reached, continued economic growth would reduce the quality of human life on a collective and average basis. Such a situation would be undesirable, but it would probably not deter further economic growth because the wealth generated, and environmental damage produced, would be unevenly distributed. The world’s poor and disenfranchised would certainly suffer immensely from the externalized environmental costs falling on them, but those individuals and nations benefiting most from the growing economy would have an economic incentive to continue along the same course.
As long as our economic engine is producing enough wealth to offset the ecological costs being generated, continued economic growth can be justified. We can, at least theoretically, compensate those who suffer most acutely from the environmental damage being done and still come out ahead. If environmental costs ever exceed global GDP, compensating all those who are harmed by the market will no longer be possible, even in theory.
Thanks again to all of you who attended my presentation. I certainly benefited from your presence and thoughtful questions. - Brian