Overview
Article – Some economic growth can be good, much is bad
Our online brochure – ‘Population and the Environment’
Proceedings of Sydney Population Forum
Overview
The ocean has an enormous capacity to act as a waste-sink, and if one small pleasure boat discharges the body waste of its occupants directly into the ocean, no great harm occurs. But when 200,000 Sutherland residents discharge their body wastes straight into the ocean at Potter Point, even the ocean’s ability to act as a waste-sink is overwhelmed.
Such is the multiplier effect of population growth: the more people there are, all other things being equal, the greater the environmental impact.
But all things are not equal. Our per-capita impact is increasing at the same time as our population is increasing – a double whammy!
Most environmentally aware people take positive steps to try and reduce their personal environmental impact; a difficult task given the constant barrage of advertising which urges them to consume even more. Yet, individual successes in reducing personal environmental impact are swamped by population increase.
Australia’s population is projected to grow by up to 9 million during the next 50 years. Sydney’s population (now just over 4 million) is projected to rise to somewhere between 5.7 and 6.2 million in the same period, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ recent publication Population Projections – Australia, 1999-2101.
The Bureau assumes that Australia will continue with high immigration levels, but points out that a policy of zero net migration would see Australia’s population peak at 20.9 million in 2028 .
Some economic growth can be good, much is bad –
2000 Population report
Gordon Hocking
It is generally accepted that economic growth is good. But this statement needs qualification. Economic growth is considered to have taken place if the total value of goods and services purchased in an economy increases over the course of a year. However, only the monetary value is measured and because the well-being value goes unaccounted for, it’s possible to have bad economic growth instead of good economic growth.
If hundreds of cars smash into each other on icy roads during a cold snap, the resulting damage generates economic growth. Similarly, an oil spill inside Sydney harbour would generate economic growth. Clearly, these are examples of bad economic growth.
Less obvious sources of bad economic growth are: sound-proofing required to keep out increased traffic noise; fuel consumed during traffic jams; health care given to asthma sufferers living in air-polluted cities; accountancy services aimed at minimising taxation; gambling; extra police and prisons required to cope with a dysfunctional society . . .
Then there is another type of economic growth, neither good nor bad. This occurs when we employ someone to do things that we used to do ourselves: preparing meals; mowing lawns; washing the dog; minding the children . . .
We can all think of many other types of economic growth that cannot unreservedly be said to be good. The point to make here is that unless we are measuring well-being, then merely measuring economic growth (without separating the good, bad and the neutral) is fairly meaningless. And probably very misleading.
A growing literature on Green Economics points out that in a largely unregulated market, decisions about which sectors of the economy expand are made by corporations who act in their own interests without any requirement to consider the public good. Because all economic activity is added to the Gross Domestic Product and is given a tick as a benefit, many environmental or social costs ludicrously appear as benefits in the National accounts.
Environmental and natural capital decline caused by economic growth — like forest depletion, soil erosion and salinisation, air and water pollution, global warming and reduction in fossil fuel reserves — are not deducted.
No business-person would accept annual accounts which did not include a value for opening and closing stock. The Taxation Department would not be too thrilled either. Yet, we place no value on our common stock of natural capital. Healthy soils, forests, wetlands and rivers are necessary for our survival — for our well-being — but economic growth can, and does, degrade them while we foolishly consider that we are making progress.