Simple question on eco growth and environment (1 Viewer)

[kooltrainer]

well question asked to discuss impact on environment if theres increase in eco growth...
what would be sum positive impacts on environment???

 

[veloc1ty]

In reality, there are none. But if you absolutely need one, perhaps "more funding available for environmental initiatives" or something along those lines.

 

[Arowana21]

FIRSTLY, 'velocity' is wrong, increasing economic growth does not provide INCREASED spending on environmental protection, because from the PPC as EG increases the funding for EP decreases.
Therefore there is not positive impact for EP, because as we increase EG we produce more goods and services and thus more resources being used to produce them, and therefore environmental depletion

 

[munchiecrunchie]

i would actually agree with velocity on this one - although the overall effect of increased eco growth may be a degradation of the environment, some of the income from the growth may still be used to implement environmental management strategies.

note that the verb here is DISCUSS, so there needs to be some mention of any positive impacts.

 

[veloc1ty]

FIRSTLY, 'velocity' is wrong, increasing economic growth does not provide INCREASED spending on environmental protection, because from the PPC as EG increases the funding for EP decreases.
Therefore there is not positive impact for EP, because as we increase EG we produce more goods and services and thus more resources being used to produce them, and therefore environmental depletion

By definition, economic growth provides more income. This income could theoretically be put into environmental initiatives.

Realistically, because economic growth inevitably results in great environmental degradation the overall affect would be negative (I said in my last post there is really no benefit) but I was looking for positive things in isolation.

 

[gnrlies]

FIRSTLY, 'velocity' is wrong, increasing economic growth does not provide INCREASED spending on environmental protection, because from the PPC as EG increases the funding for EP decreases.
Therefore there is not positive impact for EP, because as we increase EG we produce more goods and services and thus more resources being used to produce them, and therefore environmental depletion

What are you talking about? ppc?

Anyway, basically there is nothing to suggest that economic growth will come with a depletion of natural resources... If I take workers in manufacturing and put them into services where they can generate more returns, then I am achieving economic growth.

How does this deplete the environment?

Economic growth does not necessarily mean we consume more natural resources. It can lead to this outcome, but its not necessarily going to happen.

 

[kooltrainer]

yes, i know eco growth will eventually lead to depletion of resources..
right now, i need some positive benefits to environemnt from eco growth.. and i only got one point from velocity
any more points? or in depth analysis? as in examples??

 

[blakegman]

There are very few, and i can't imagine them ever asking for any mor then 1. In which you could state as mentioned before increased spending in evironmental protection.

Im pretty sure the question ealy just wants you to state the bad things, as eco growth is an objective that clashes with environmental protection.

 

[michael1990]

What are you talking about? ppc?

Anyway, basically there is nothing to suggest that economic growth will come with a depletion of natural resources... If I take workers in manufacturing and put them into services where they can generate more returns, then I am achieving economic growth.

How does this deplete the environment?

Economic growth does not necessarily mean we consume more natural resources. It can lead to this outcome, but its not necessarily going to happen.

I'm sorry to the others, but i agree with you.

We don't have to use more resources in order to achieve high income (which in turn will be economic growth).

 

[veloc1ty]

Of course you can get some economic growth by improving productivity etc but realistically to significantly increase output you'll need to use more resources overall.

Anyway, just by sustaining the current level of output we consume more resources and further degrade the environment. We're well past the point where the earth can support us indefinitely.

 

[kooltrainer]

true

this is what economic is all about... u argue one side, then the other and u go on forever...

 

[Cookie182]

I think a point i used in the HSC and might be in one of the eco textbooks is that due to extensive eco growth and resource depletion and ofteni ncreased emissions, it can actually raise envrionemntal awareness and insight more environmental activisim/policies. Example, before large scale industrilisaton (particulalry the 1980's onwards) which is generally considered the 'globalisation' period there was not as much concern with envrionmental policies- it was not part of a government's main agenda. It is actually the onset of this period and large scale growth which has in turn averted more attention to the environment (even though we had bascially been polluting on a large scale since the industrial revolution).

 

[Lorie]

The main economic issue here is the existence of externalities. Externalties are when there is flow on effects to parties outside the buyer and producer (3rd parties). There can be positive externalities, such as education and flu shots; and also negative externailties, damage to the environment being a clear example. When there is existence of externalites is means there is market failure within the economy or the particular industry, and government intervention is required to account for these externalties.

When there is simple production of a good or service, there is a simple supply and demand graph to indicate the equalibrium price and quantity. This shows the marginal cost (being supply) and the marginal benefit (being demand) meeting together. However, when there is existence of negative externalities ie. enviroment impacts, the marginal cost does not include the full costs of the good or service. Thus to factor in the total costs (marignal costs plus social costs) the supple curve should shift to the left which should result is a higher price and decreased quatity. This would produce the equalibrium for society.

(it would be easier to explain with a graph, but i think you get the idea)

I don't believe that there would be direct benefits for the environment from economic growth. However, you could argue that when there is increased economic growth there is increased taxation revenue for the government which can be used for government spending towards environment protection.

You can also look at the two main forms of government intervention with the market failure of negative externalties; which are taxation and tradeable permits.