Environmental Progress vs Economic Growth

 Many people try to frame environmental debates as debates between those who care about the environment and those who simply do not. This is not an accurate picture.

The tug of war between environmentalists and 'non-environmentalists' is not a tug of war between those who care for the environment vs those who do not care for the environment. It is between the environment vs economic growth and personal income (be it in the form of more money in your pocket or having a job).

I can not think of one contentious environmental law that doesn’t either harm economic growth or people's pocket book. For example, if you want to place higher taxes on gas, something that John Kerry was very fond of, that would disproportionately hurt my friends back in Compton than people in San Francisco. Why? Because the poorer you are, the more those extra cents a gallon matter. Or think of emission regulations, like those here in California. If those place a burden on companies, who bears the brunt of those burdens? Not the rich CEOs, but the people at the bottom of the economic ladder. For example, if the company decides to leave California because the restrictions are so high, that hurts primarily those w/ less economic capital, those that have less experience and education to bargain with. They lose that job, and they will have a much harder time getting another job than me and my Engineering friends. Or assuming the company doesn’t leave, say those regulations cost the company some extra money, hurting their bottom dollar, who are the first to go? Not the CEOs, but those at the bottom. In addition to personal income, economic growth is also (severely) restricted. Estimates say that it would cost us as much as $150 billion a year to transfer to a more environmentally regulated system.

This is especially evident when you look at underdeveloped countries. The last thing underdeveloped countries need is environmental regulations. At such low levels of economic growth, the first thing they are concentrating on is economic growth and feeding their children. This is the primary reason that underdeveloped countries are usually left out of environmental treaties.

This is primarily why the most pro-environmental people tend to be wealthy. All them Hollywood liberals, for example, are a lot less concerned with economic growth and bottom dollars than the poor. Or, for example, if you were to take a sample of the Sierra Club members, you would see that they are largely upper-income city dwellers (and tend to be anti-immigration, but that is a story for another day). This is why you see limousine liberals much more pro-environmentalist than say, inner city liberalism. Inner city liberals, being on the lower end of economic growth and income, tend to benefit more from the other side of that tug of war.

Of course, both sides are important. We need to preserve the environment and encourage economic growth and care for the poor. The question is where in the middle do you draw the line? The poorer you are, the more you want the line to the right; the richer you are, the more you want the line to the left. Conservatives/Republicans tend to err on the side of economic growth (and, indirectly, personal income for the poor), while liberals/Democrats tend to err on the side of the environment, both ideally wanting the best of both worlds. (Originally Posted: 5/11/2005)

Environmentalism: Luxury Of The Rich

Going through the trouble of getting my smog check this weekend reminded me of one of my pet peeves in politics: wealthy environmentalists feeling moral about themselves while others (primarily the poor) pay the burden.

Here in California, in order to register your car you have to get a smog check every two years. They typically start around $50/car and go up from there, depending on the size of the car. However, if your car has the 'service engine soon' light on, for any reason, it will not pass smog. No ifs ands or buts. On top of that, if you are lucky enough to get your car serviced, thereby removing the 'service engine soon' light, you still can't smog your car...you have to drive it around for a few days, under different conditions, for atleast 20 miles before you even have a chance to pass smog.

Luckily for me, I can pay my mechanic (a family friend) to drive to San Diego and replace the part needed to remove the 'service engine soon' light. But I am reminded of how difficult and terrifying this situation was when I didn't have that luxury. When I was growing up, I had (like most of my friends and neighbors) a cheap, used, beat up, automobile, and the thought of having to pay the cost of bringing it up to smog was terrifying. Most of the time we would simply buy off the smog check operator. Giving him $50 on top of the smog fee to get him to do what was needed to 'pass' the car. California has gotten smarter about that and I hear now, it's near impossible to fake a 'pass' on smog (though I haven't needed to try). So if you have an old, beat up, car that you use to get to work and pick up your groceries with, one that is vital to your parenting, income and free time, and and it doesn't pass smog - too bad for you (don't get me started on the 'assistance' offered either), it's time to take the bus (and even here, environmentalists will cheer, as greater use of buses is encouraged). Yet, how many rich environmentalists do you think would even have to deal with a smog check problem?

The smog check is just a minor reminder of environmentalism in general: it is a luxury of the rich. The richer you are, the more you can afford to be an environmentalist. Whether we are talking about environmental land regulations, emission regulations, a gas tax, or any other contentious environmental issue, the costs are usually disproportionately paid for by the poor.

Nothing demonstrates this better than looking at the trends in global poverty and environmentalism. David Friedman writes:

For someone in favor of helping poor people, the economic development of China and India is arguably the best news of the past fifty years. Development was, after all, the explicit goal of foreign economic aid, development planning, a variety of programs in the post-war period that were supposed to lift the third world out of poverty--and didn't. The fact that more than two billion people are now in the process of moving from extreme poverty towards the sort of life westerners have long lived represents an enormous improvement in the condition of the world's poor.

It also represents a sharp increase in the consumption of depletable resources and production of carbon dioxide.

Take China as an example, a country where millions of people are moving out of poverty yearly. Great news for those interested in poverty. But bad news for environmentalism, as China moving from rural agricultural society to urban industrialized society means they will burn alot more coal (coal being one of the cheapest sources of energy), thereby increasing the production of carbon dioxide. Some environmentalists, seeing the contradiction try to get around it by making an argument that the environmental impact affects China (and poor areas in general) the most, but this pales in comparison to the economic impact that environmental regulations would impose. Economic development, in many inherent ways, is really at odds with environmental development.

Of course this means nothing to the wealthy environmentalists living in the comfort of the wealthiest countries in the world. Being outside the realm of absolute poverty gives them the luxury to be environmentalists and pontificate on the 'evils' of global warming. People in China on the other hand, are more concerned with feeding their children and reaching the standard of living that we in the west have long enjoyed.

The same general pattern applies here in the United States. The higher up on the income ladder you are, the more you can afford to be an environmentalist, and the rest of us have to hear your moral tripe and - worst of all - pay for it.


For more on this go here, here, here, here, and here. (Posted 03/04/2008)