ie wf Ff 6OBEECES ow we & Niatwa. Masa» Chapter 7 Sustainable economic development Economic growth is a good thing. It may not buy happiness (Chapter 2), but it usually purchases a better quality of life. Table 1 showed that growth in real GDP per capita comes hand in hand with improvements in the way people are able to live. But can economies grow indefinitely, or are there limits to growth? To put the question in a more contemporary form, is growth in real GDP compatible with sustainable economic development? : Conflicting viewpoints The question is several decades old. If discussions on it continue to be shrill, it is because two opposing empirical perspectives have shaped them. On the one hand, if we look at specific examples of natural resources (fresh water, ocean fisheries, the atmosphere as a carbon sink ~ more generally, ecosystems), there is strong evidence that the rates at which we are currently utilizing them are unsustainable. During the 20th century world population grew by a factor of four to more than 6 billion, industrial output increased by a multiple of 40 and the use of energy by 16, methane-producing cattle population grew in pace with human population, fish catch increased by a multiple of 35 and carbon and sulphur dioxide emissions by 10. The application of nitrogen to the terrestrial environment from the use of fertilizers, fossil fuels, and leguminous crops is now at least as great as that from all natural sources 7 137Economics combined. Ecologists have estimated that 4.0% of created by terrestrial photosynthesis is cur rently being appropriated for human use. These figures put the scale of our presence on Earth in perspective and reveal that Humanity has created an unprecedented distur bance in N; f the net energy jature in a brief period of a century or so. On the other hand, it has been argued that just as earlier generations in Becky's world inves! education, and machines and equi parents’ generation the ability to ed in science and technology, pment so as to bequeath to her achieve high income levels, they are now in turn making investments that will assure still higher living standards in the future. Ithas been argued as well that the historical trend in the prices of marketed natural resources, such as minerals and ores, has been so flat that there isn’t any reason for alarm. Economic growth has allowed more people to have access to potable water and enjoy better protection against water- and air- borne diseases. The physical environment inside the home has improved beyond measure with economic growth: cooking in the Indian subcontinent continues to be a major cause of respiratory illnesses among women. Moreover, natural resources can be so. shifted round today, that dwindling resources in one place can be met by imports from another. Intellectuals and comment: the term ‘globalization’ to imply that location per se doesn’t matter. This optimistic view emphasizes the potential of capital accumulation and technological improvements to compensate for environmental degradation. It says th at economic growth, even in the form and shape it has taken so far, is compatible with sustainable development. Which may explain why contemporary Societies are obsessed with cultural survival and on the whole dismissive of any suggestion that we need to find ways to survive ecologically. ‘ators use Broadly speaking, environmental scientists and activists hold the former view, while economists and economic commentators maintain the latter. It is no doubt banal to say that our economies 118 PPO 929909HHHNH10999F HOO 8GUE e eb uo are built in and on Nature of Productive but I wonder if you Noticed that the list Assets I drew earlier (Chapter | didn't inet tural capital, N, ‘ature in our account 6 jude ature didn’t fe ‘acroeconomic history } Publications of the minerals of m; it doesn't appear in official Vital statistics of nations and fossil fire (though not depreci land, natur because The extraction of Is is included in moder ated), but with the e al capital makes ve services have 1 national accounts xception of Ty little appe: appeared in this t that is how matters empiries of e agricultur ‘arance. If Nature's book so far only in py assing, it is because are in the literature on the th eory and Conomic growth and the economics of poverty Natural capital: classification Natural capital is of direct use indirect us in both (, in consumption (fisheries as inputs in production (oil rand water). The value its usefulness (as and natural gas); or of use of a resource is often d 4 source of food, or as an essential actor in Such as a keystone species); but there are whose value is aesthetic (places (primates, blue wl rived from ecosystems — esources of 'scenic beauty), or intrinsic hales, sacred groves), or (biodiversity). The worth of a natu what is extracted from it (timbe: (forest cover), or on both (wi combination of all three resource could be based T), Or on its presence as a stock ‘atersheds), quausdojanap >uwouore jqeujersns The ecologists and environmental scientists Paul Ehrlich, John Holdren, Peter Raven, and more rec Lubchenco, Pamela Matson, Harold Mooney, and others have taught us the economic significance of ecosystems. Interpreting natural capital in an inclusive way, as | am doing here, allows us to add ecosystems to our list of capital assets, The services they produce include maintaining a genetic library, preserving and regenerating soil, fixing nitrogen and carbon, controlling floods, filtering pollutants, assimilating waste, ; pollinating crops, operating the hydrological cycle, and inaintaining the gaseous composition of the atmosphere. A number of them have ntly Gretchen Daily, Jane ecycling nutrients, ng 139Economics a global reach (the atmosphere), but many are localized (microwatersheds) Pollutants are the reverse of resources. Roughh eaking, ‘resources’ are ‘goods’ (in many situations they are the sinks into which pollutants are disc resources) are ‘bads’. If over a period of time the discharge of pollutants into a sink exc eds the latter's assimilative capacity, the sink collapses. Pollution is thus the reverse of conservation. In what follows, we will use the terms natural resources and environment interchangeably. Two simple exercises in environmental economics In order to demonstrate that economics is capable of. joining the environmental sciences in a seamless way, it will prove useful to begin with a discussion of two issues that are much in the news today. The first is the subject of an acrimonious debate between those who favour free trade and those who are opposed to it on grounds that it often hurts the poorest in Desta’s world. The second is the belief that because the economic effects of carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere are likely to be felt by a generation or two further down from us, we needn’t do anything about climate change now. Trade expansion and the environment There should be little doubt today that, other things being equal, freeing trade enables economies to grow faster. A large body of empirical work testifies to that. There is some evidence too that the poor, as a group, also enjoy the fruits of faster growth. However, as the environmental consequences of economic growth are rarely assessed, the case for freeing trade remains unclear. If those consequences hurt many of the poorest in society, there is room for discussion about the merits of freeing trade without at the same time taking precautionary measures. Here is an example of how trade expansion can hurt. 120 140 ged), while ‘pollutants’ (the degrader of o - 2 & » , 2 e é S S c ¢ 6 c & €. s ° S a ss. .An ea: covered in forests to earn revenue is to is way for governments in poor countries that are richly 1e timber concessions to private logging firms. Imagine that logging concessions are awarded for the upland forest of a watershed. Deforestation contributes to an increase in siltation and the risk of floods downstream. If the law recogniz s the rights of those who are harmed, the logging firm would have to compensate downstream farmers and coastal fishermen. But there is a gulf between the law and the enforcement of the law. When the cause of damage is miles away, when the timber concession has been awarded by the state, and when the victims are a scattered group of poor farmers and coastal fishermen, the issue of a negotiated outcome usually doesn’t arise. It can even be that those who are harmed do not know the underlying cause of their deteriorating circumstances. If the logging firm isn’t required to compensate those suffering damage, the private cost of logging is less than the true cost of logging, the latter being the sum of the costs borne by the logging firm and all who are adversely affected. From the country’s point of view, timber exports are underpriced, which is another way of saying that there is excessive deforestation upstream, It is also a way of saying that there is an implicit subsidy on the export, paid for by people who are evicted from the forest and by people downstream. The subsidy is hidden from public scrutiny; but it amounts to a transfer of wealth from the exporting country to those that import the timber. Some of the poorest people in a poor country would be subsidizing the incomes of the average importer ina rich country. quausdojanap 2}wWouora ajqeujersns Unfortunately, I can give you no idea of the magnitude of those ‘subsidies, because they haven't been estimated. International ‘the resources to undertake such studies; but, to they haven't done so. The example ee trade, but it can be used to while ignoring itsEconomics Discounting climate change My second example concerns the emission of greenhouse gases and the global climate change it is inducing, the subject of continuing study by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The global concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere stood at approximately 260 parts per million (ppm) for 11,000 years until the early 18th century, but is now 380 ppm. (We will ignore the concentration of methane, which is another greenhouse gas.) The most reliable evidence on climate change over geological time comes from ice cores in Antarctica; which reveals that until the early 18th century, the maximum concentration of carbon dioxide during the previous 420,000 years was 300 ppm. That long interval of time witnessed four glacial-interglacial cycles, each of about 100,000 years’ duration. Those cycles are driven by rhythmic changes in the amount of solar radiation reaching Earth, the effects of which are amplified by the feedbacks and forces they in turn generate within Earth’s environment. We are living in an interglacial period, which means that Earth is experiencing a warm phase. If current trends in carbon emissions continue, carbon concentration is expected to reach 500 ppm (which is nearly twice the pre-industrial level) by the middle of this century, and could reach as high a figure as 750 ppm (which is nearly three times the pre-industrial level) by the year 2100. A doubling of present-day carbon concentration is expected to give rise to an increase in the mean global atmospheric temperature by 3 to 7 degrees Celsius. With a trebling of concentration, it could rise by 6 to 11 degrees. The temperature that would result even if the rise were limited to 3 degrees is beyond anything that has been experienced on Earth in the past 420,000 years. The speed of that change is of particular significance, because it would mean that a ,good portion of our capital assets will become less than useful long before their planned obsolescence. Some of our infrastructure will even disappear under the rising seas. In order to restructure our 122 99 aq @$e?¢e92999 9 pp ereneee mere???assets, humanity will need to make additional investments, ’s from consumption. If we add the impact of diverting resours ystems (changes in the disease rapid climate change on eco: re not immune; environment to which human populations degradation in the composition, geographic distribution, and productivity of ecosystems), the potential costs begin to look huge. Nevertheless, when in 2004 eight eminent economists were invited to Copenhagen to offer advice on how the world community could most usefully spend $50 billion over a five-year period, they placed climate change at the bottom of their list of ten alternatives. Why did the economists do that? They did it because their reasoning was based on discounting future costs and benefits at a positive rate, Reducing global carbon emissions or investing in technologies for carbon sequestration would involve huge costs now, but the benefits from averting economic disruptions would be enjoyed only 50 to 100 years from now. Long-term interest rates on government bonds in the US have been 3-5% a year. When economists there evaluate public projects, they typically use such a figure to discount future benefits and costs, regarding it as the ‘opportunity cost of capital’, the term being applied to the rate of interest that could be earned by investing in government bonds rather than in the project whose benefits and costs are being evaluated. At discount rates of 3-5%, though, consumption benefits in the distant future look minute today. If you discount at 4% a year, a dollar's worth of additional consumption benefits 100 years from now would be worth less than 3 cents today; which is another of saying that as a price for giving up $1 worth of consumption today, you would demand that more than $30 worth of consumption benefits be made available 100 years from now. A number of economic models of climate change have shown that if you use an annual discount rate of, say, 4%, the costs (which are negative benefits) are greater than the sum of the discounted benefits from curbing net carbon emissions. Doing something about climate change now, the calculations imply, would be to throw money away on a comparatively bad project. yuausdojenap 21wouora ajqeureysns ay 123Should the global community discount future consumption benefits at a positive rate? As with households at the private level (Chapter 6), so it is with households at the collective level: there are two reasons why it may be reasonable for the global community to discount future benefits at a positive rate. First, a future benefit would be of less value than that same benefit today if the globs community is impatient to enjoy the benefit now. Impatience is a reason for discounting future costs and benefits at a positive rate. Second, considerations of justice and equality demand that consumption per capita should be smoothed across the generations. So, if future generations likely to be richer than us, there is a case for valuing an extra dollar's worth of their consumption less than an extra dollar's worth of our consumption, other things being equal. Rising consumption per capita provides a secohd justification for discounting future costs and benefits at a positive rate. Philosophers have argued that societal impatience is ethically indefensible, because it favours policies that discriminate against future generations merely on the grounds that they are not present today. Once we accept their argument, we are left with only the second reason for discounting future costs and benefits, But if per capita consumption provides the global community with a reason for discounting future consumption benefits at a Pp rate, declining per capita consumption would provide it with a reason for discounting future consumption benefits at a negative rate. We noted the latter possibility at the household level in connection with the dilemma Desta’s parents face when deciding how to spread the consumption of maize between ha: (Chapter 6). Economics ive Economists use positive discount rates in their models of climate change because the models assume that global consw: mption per head will continue to grow over the next 150 years and more even if net emissions of greenhouse gases follow current trends; which is to assume that climate change poses no serious threat to the future. 1245 degrees But an increase in the mean global temperature by Celsius would take the biosphere into a climatic zone that has not been visited in millions of years on Earth. The possible consequences of such changes to our productive base are so huge, rmist to question forecasts of continual that it isn't to be an al economic growth even after Earth enters that zone. Suppose you fear that if nothing substantial is done today to discover ways to sequester carbon and to find alternatives to fossil fuels as sources of sizeable chance that global consumption per head, her energy, s suitably weighted across regions and income groups, will decline - owing, say, to a big increase in the frequency of extreme weather events, more severe droughts in the tropics, the emergence of new pathogens, and degradation of vital ecosystems. You should then use a negative rate to discount future consumption benefits. Notice though that applying a negative rate amplifies benefits in the distant future when viewed from the present, it doesn’t attenuate them. Let us perform a quick calculation to get a feel for orders of. magnitude. Empirical evidence from societal and personal choices suggests that the rate a society ought to use to discount future consumption benefits is about three times the percentage rate of change of consumption per capita. Imagine that carbon emissions follow their current trends (which is often called ‘business as Consider a scenario in which global consumption per capita increases at an annual rate of 0.5% for the next 50 years and declines at 1% a year for the following 100 years. Under that scenario, the global community ought to discount future consumption benefits at 1.5% a year for the next 50 years (3 times 0.5) and at minus 3% for the subsequent 100 yt ‘3 times minus 1). Asimple calculation now shows that a dollar's worth of additional consumption 150 years from now is worth $9 of additional consumption today. To put it another way, the global community should be willing to forgo $9 worth of additional consumption today for an extra dollar's worth of consumption benefits 150 years in the future. The calculation reverses the 125 sual’). quauidojanap 21Wo0WODa ajqeutersns