Environment-Poverty Nexus

By: Bikal Dhungel 

The Earth is our home. It is actually more than a home because it not only gives us a place to stay but also provides us with everything we need to survive. It takes care of us. So, we should also take care of it. It has become a home of over 7 billion people and will accommodate 3 billion more in the next 50 years. For the most part of our existence, the human existence, population remained the same or it grew so slowly that there was no such burden placed on earth which put its own survival in danger. But when we developed in material well-being which we also call industrialization, population grew rapidly. This growth was mostly centered on industrialized countries. As the economy and population grew, enormous pressure on planet earth was exercised which led to environmental degradation. It is not sure if this growth could be achieved without such pressure on earth because earth provides us with resources like the forests that were vital for growth. But for sure, environmental pollution sky-rocketed, CO2 emission increased heavily and resources were depleted. In the course of 200 years, industrialized countries acquired so much wealth that they are today 40 times richer that the poorest countries. Both of them were roughly equal prior to industrialization. A second lot of countries started to grow after the 1950s. They too achieved economic growth so rapidly that income has increased by more than 10 times from 1950s to 2015. However, about 3 billion people on earth are still poor, in a sense that they earn less than $2 a day. 1 billion people earn less than $1 a day. They want to grow too. But now the mainstream media is filled with news like 'they cant have that', 'that is not sustainable', 'earth cannot accommodate so many people with that high living standards' etc. There are also many scholarly articles claiming that the poor cant grow the same way as today's rich countries did. And there are counter arguments claiming it not to be true.

Evidence shows that, economic growth was indeed good. For rich countries anyway but even if we look at poor countries, average per capita income grew from about $900 in 1975 to $1350 in the year 2000. Infant mortality rate decreased, literacy rate increased, healthcare access to the poorest increased, share of women in schools and educational institutions increased and there were other positive development. This success can be attributed to economic growth. But there is other side of the story too. Air pollution level is higher than ever, fresh water sources were depleted, massive soil degradation, deforestation, loss of bio-diversity among others. And of course, there are other economical challenges like inequality and poverty.

So, the question here is, should the poor 2 billion of today and other 3 billion who will be born in developing countries be allowed to grow ? Wouldnt they put more burden on environment ? Wouldnt there be more environmental degradation ? Well, it can be. But for that, is it morally good to let poverty remain like this ? Is it the poor who harm the environment or the rich ? Will poverty reduction make the environment better or worse ? The answer is, nobody knows. But there are evidences that poverty causes some environmental degradation, for example when the poor use firewood for cooking, they cut trees. On the other hand, economic growth generates demand of wooden furniture and more trees need to be cut as well. We have to analyze, which aspect of poverty cause environmental degradation. Scholars agree on population growth which is the catalyst of poverty-led degradation, either in terms of more demand of woods or farmlands that require clearing forests. Farmland is not available everywhere. So clearing forests sometimes is the only option available to ensure adequate food supply through agriculture.

Arguments can go on further but we have to see the evidences. There is no scarcity of journal articles that poverty reduction has caused environmental damage. China, the most successful story of poverty reduction where 700 million people were brought up from poverty in just 40 years, environmental damage was rampant. Tens of thousands of hecters of land have been turned to deserts, forests were cleared off for creative destruction and CO2 emission is immeasurable. There are also frequent floods, landslides and other natural disasters in China. On the other hand, no person should die of hunger, as they did under Mao's rule. Here, environment was damaged but human welfare improved. Recently, after the unbearable air pollution in major cities, China brought tough environmental measures. It was seen as the turning point of Environmental Kuznets Curve. Other countries share similar stories. On the cost of environment, human welfare and poverty reduction was achieved.

When we see in the amazon rain forests and some other areas on earth, the best protected forests are those where the indigenous people live, who are also among the poorest in the world. They are the protectors of the environment. Poor people are believed to be the best environmental managers because they rely directly in forests and nature for their survival. There are also enough scholarly journals which prove that, the Willingness to Pay for better environment is high among the poor. It is same in South America, South Asia and Sub Saharan Africa. However, even the Willingness to Pay for better environment is higher in rich countries, this has decreased in the last few decades. Probably because it has arrived in the mainstream media and lots of things have been done for the environment and people in rich countries might think that they are already doing enough for the environment.

To conclude, both environment and poverty are the challenges we face today. My personal opinion is that poverty should be eradicated first. Poverty is the challenge of today whereas environment is also today but mostly tomorrow. Only after the humans are well off, there is likelihood of technological advances that will help us to better protect the environment. Although, Kuznets Curve has not been proved correct everywhere, at least in some advanced countries we can see that the demand for better environment grew with economic growth and more technologies came into existence which has reduced the pollution rapidly. When developing countries focus on poverty reduction by taking any measure and developed countries help them with technology transfer to leap frog to sustainability, they can achieve both, economic growth and environmental protection. But as I already mentioned, if there is no technology transfer, it will not be a reality and at last all are worse off because though countries are different, the earth is same. Pollution caused by one country will affect the other. It is also necessary to make paths for technology transfer. Technology transfer doesnt work this way, that rich countries tell poor countries, ' here, I have this technology, take this and use this' . No, it is possible though, trade, foreign direct investment, educational transfers and of course mutual cooperation. If they fail to achieve this, nothing will happen. When they should keep in mind is that, either they do it, either they cooperate or dig two graves at the same time.