Economic Growth and the Environment
If money can’t buy happiness, why is further economic growth so highly sought after by the world’s most affluent nations? In Annie Leonard’s work, “The Story of Stuff,” overconsumption is identified as the main cause of environmental issues worldwide. Jack Hollander, on the other hand, isolates poverty as the preventative factor in moving towards a more sustainable future in “The Real Environmental Crisis.” Undoubtedly, environmental issues have risen as one of the most pressing challenges facing humanity. Although some may argue that poverty prevents large-scale green solutions, economic growth is the root of the environmental crisis because it does not equate to increased environmental investments, materialism does not improve the human condition, and a booming economy distracts from its own environmental consequences.
To begin with, economic growth does not mean a greater financial contribution will go towards resolving environmental issues. A perfect example of this was displayed when “Americans spent two-thirds of our $11 trillion economy on consumer goods, with more paid for shoes, jewelry, and watches than for higher education” (Leonard 146). The priorities expressed in these statistics must be addressed as higher education is essential in understanding environmental issues and enabling vital action. What’s more is that “while eliminating hunger and malnutrition would have cost $19 billion” (Leonard 146), the U.S. and Europe expended $17 billion to feed their pets. When basic humanitarian needs are not being met, there must be a widespread reconsideration of spending responsibility. Finally, the affluent possess privilege in their access to resources, therefore holding power in their ability to use resources as they please. When it comes to energy, “The richest fifth consumes 58 percent of energy generated globally; the poorest fifth less than 4 percent” (Leonard 178). In other words, a concentration of wealth calls for a distribution of power.
Not only has economic growth been unproductive with environmental initiatives, but the materialism it creates does not actually result in an improvement of life satisfaction or wellbeing. The State of the World 2004 report conducted by Worldwatch Institute found that the foundations of living are achieved “when people earn and consume about thirteen thousand dollars per year, as a global average” (Leonard 149). After hitting this mark, the “endorphin boost” mistakenly associated with materialism is significantly less apparent. In other words, this false sense of satisfaction is not a justifiable reason to neglect the effects that wealth distribution could achieve.
Despite these environmental shortcomings of economic growth, Hollander claims that poverty is to blame for the dire state of the global environment. In the example of China as a leading country in manufacturing, scrubbing the smokestacks is not the primary focus of investment when there are citizens who require better living conditions (Hollander 24). Amartya Sen, a Nobel laureate and economist, claims that economic freedom results in “the opportunity for education, public debate, and discussion, which make possible rational choices about… the environment” (Hollander 26). Lastly, Caracas Valley is home to low-income residents who suffer from “a radical increase in major landslides and slope failures from less than one per decade before 1950 to the current average of two or more per month” (Davis 122). In each of these instances, the responsibility of environmental stewardship does not fall on the impoverished and oppressed; the solution lies in the need for the privileged to distribute excess wealth.
The unnecessary expansion of already affluent economies directly harms the environment on exponential levels. According to Leonard, “Costa Ricans… live slightly longer than Americans, and report much higher levels of life satisfaction, and yet have a footprint which is less than a quarter the size” (Leonard 152). This shows that the increased production and high-consumption rate of resources in a highly successful economy is not the answer to resolving issues like reducing greenhouse gas emissions and waste management. Another ploy of a growing economy is planned obsolescence; products are created to be bought over and over once they are no longer functional. Sometimes people will own several of these products at once, such as cars, appliances, Keurig coffee pods, plastic utensils, etc. Perceived obsolescence also comes into play as products that are completely intact become viewed as not up to date (Leonard 161). This can be seen with fast fashion, purchasing the newest technology, and more. Many of these items will be thrown away, left for landfills or incinerators that negatively impact the environment.
Underneath the glamorous image associated with materialism, economic growth has environmental consequences deeply-rooted and intertwined with systematic oppression of the poor. Despite the potential a well-performing economy has for reaching monumental environmental goals, the system requires a significant amount of resources, releases a footprint higher than many developing nations, and has an underwhelming effect on a sense of fulfillment in consumers. Rather than focus on culminating more wealth or shaming the impoverished, there must be a new emphasis on global commitment to allocate funds that support environmental initiatives for a drastic variety of socioeconomic backgrounds.
Works Cited
Davis, Mike. Planet of Slums. Verso, 2017.
Hollander, Jack M. The Real Environmental Crisis: Why Poverty, Not Affluence, Is the Environment's Number One Enemy. University of California Press, 2004.
Leonard, Annie, and Ariane Conrad. The Story of Stuff: How Our Obsession with Stuff Is Trashing the Planet, Our Communities, and Our Health--and a Vision for Change. Free Press, 2011.
