Recently I came across an article by economic theorists supporting the idea that prosperity leads to a cleaner world. In essence, consumption is not an issue because the more wealthy we become, the more capable we are of “cleaning” previous pollution, and preventing future pollution. So, we should produce more, thereby making more money and saving the planet. It’s a fantastic idea, but it is a fantasy; no more grounded in reality than expecting wealth to be able to bring back lost loved ones. No amount of cash and technology can bring mom back.
7 Million People? What 7 Million People?
The article was posted on Twitter, with the statement “Years ago, pollution used to kill, now we scarcely if ever hear stories in the industrialized world of pollution.” I fail to see how 7 million people is “scarce.” In March of this year, the World Health Organization released a report which links 7 million deaths per year to air pollution. Assuming that the industrialized world is unaffected or immune to consequences like that is naive and reckless. I live in a suburb of Chicago (obviously one of the most important/historic industrial centers of the U.S.), and 100% of the waterways within 5 miles of my zip code are listed as polluted. The Environmental Protection Agency recently released an application that will tell you the water quality in any area you search. A quick review of the Dupage River near my home shows it listed as “impaired” for wildlife and recreation due to mercury and PCB levels. To be clear, the United States, the most powerful and wealthy nation on the planet, has been unable to clean/prevent pollution in water around one of its largest cities (especially the toxic sludge that is the Chicago River). So, in order to correct and manage those air pollution deaths and polluted waterways, we must need more money.
Let’s assume we somehow do increase our wealth, and with it our ability to manage pollution and resource depletion. Since 1979, the Mayan Hieroglyphic Stairway in Honduras has been “managed” in an attempt to preserve it. First, the stone blocks were consolidated, which led to extensive corrosion from water. So, a shelter was erected to prevent further water damage, but the blocks dried out and began to flake. Then mold began to grow in the flakes, and had to be removed. The mold removal process carried parts of the stone away with it. Ok, obviously stone stairs are too complicated, so how can we expect to manage the planet? There are countless other examples of human arrogance creating new problems while attempting to solve others: the Aral Sea, Cane Toads, the Colorado River, organochlorine, algal blooms, Kamilo Beach, etc. Anyone that subscribes to the idea that the economic market is best left with minimal government interference should see irony in suggesting that humans can be efficient managers of the life and resources on this planet.
We’ll Just Buy Another
With around 5% of the world’s population, Americans produce 40% of it’s garbage, drive as many miles as the entire rest of the world, and consume 20% of the world’s energy. So, if everyone were as affluent as Americans, we’d need resources equal to at least 3 more earths. But with enough money, we can just buy our way out of that, right?
On the surface, desalination seems like a good example of a strong economy overcoming unsustainable living, but the truth is something else entirely. Desalination is a process that is becoming more widely used as a response to water shortages around the globe. California, for example, is currently working on a $1 billion project that is scheduled to open in 2016 and should be capable of producing 50 million gallons of drinking water per day. That $1 billion project will only supply about 8% of the households in California, via the most energy intensive (expensive) water production process currently available. So, in this case, the answer seems to be: use money to solve a problem that needs more money… guess we’ll just have to sell more stuff.
Take a Penny, Take a Penny
The notion that we can manage, or even save, the environment via production and economic growth is fundamentally flawed. The idea that business can be economically prosperous while somehow putting more resources back into the environment, and removing pollution is absurd unless there is a fundamental change in the nature of business itself. Perhaps with a closed system design where one business uses the waste of another business, coupled with a market that reflects the ecological cost of items, we can move towards a unity of prosperity and sustainability. But until that time we must do our best to understand relationships between business and the planet. And the current relationship is abusive.
Overfishing, deforestation, air pollution, water pollution, global warming, and mass extinctions are not to be shrugged off as myths. Any theoretical system, economic or otherwise, that views these occurrences as mere externalities should be kept within its theoretical vacuum.
Remember, the point is to attack the problem without creating worse ones.
“The assumption is that we can first set demons at large and then, somehow, become smart enough to control them” – Wendell Berry
Emptying the Vacuum
I would caution anyone who wishes to “extend” my argument to areas I do not directly address in this article. For example, I do not think the world would be better off poor. I very much enjoy my “affluent” American lifestyle. That said, I have no delusions about its effect on the planet. And I feel that more people should shed their delusions.
I feel it’s quite obvious that massive consumption is the root cause of environmental depletion and pollution. So, while I’m all for increasing the living conditions of human populations around the globe, I feel that owning 10 cars and multiple homes (excessive, lavish living) is irresponsible and uncaring towards the rest of humanity (2.2 million people die per year from drinking contaminated water). For the record, I own 1 car, open the windows instead of using air conditioning, have a garden, etc. (basically do what I can to be more and more eco-friendly each day).
No, I’m not a socialist. I think that there should be competition and flows in economic power. That said, I think the flow could definitely stand to be a bit more balanced (CEO’s of publicly held corporations make 280 times what the typical worker makes).
Please don’t take my thoughts and attempt to pigeonhole them into any preconceived category to which you currently subscribe. I’m neither right nor left, capitalist nor communist, Marxist nor Keynesian. I’m simply working towards a better world by looking to past for guidance and ignoring it when necessary.
So, if you’re going to take something, like an economic theory, out of its vacuum and attempt to apply it here and there, don’t be surprised when you notice you’ve gotten dust everywhere.
Links
http://www.globalwarming.org/2011/12/05/julian-simon-the-peculiar-theory-of-pollution/
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2014/air-pollution/en/
http://watersgeo.epa.gov/mywaterway/
http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications_resources/pdf_publications/pdf/copan1.pdf
http://news.sciencemag.org/earth/2014/06/rocks-made-plastic-found-hawaiian-beach
http://www.greenhome.com/blog/hawaiis-plastic-beach
http://www.thedownstreamproject.org/2013/08/26/take-the-test-how-many-earths-do-you-need/
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/diseases/diarrhoea/en/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5dYpaPyFsg
http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/understanding-says-law-of-markets