Ekc's Argument Of Environmental Protection

852 Words4 Pages

The main argument of EKC is that environmental protection is luxury. Poor nations are less to protect the environment because they dealing with prosperous and existence. At the beginning, these nations experienced rapid growth that is come on the expense of the environment. When the nations become richer they have more abilities and possibilities to invest in environmental protection technologies, and the citizens which demands regulation since they have more knowledge on the pollution's impacts on their lives. The ecological economist, Tim Jackson, criticize in his book "Prosperity without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet" the green growth by using I=PAT equation. A criticism that is also relevant to EKC. Jackson claim that it is possible to dismantle any environmental impact like greenhouse gas emissions, pollution, consumption of non-renewable resources, to three components: P= Population represent the population of an area, A= Affluence represents the average consumption of each person in the population, T=Technology represent how resource intensive the production of affluence is. The EKC argument mainly focuses on issues relevant to technology part in the equation, meaning, reducing T. The problem is …show more content…

The Greenhouse gas emitting all over the world is increase, and worsen. The emitting is increasing fast, apparently because of the massive growth in the amount of emitting in China. This issue demonstrate one of EKC problems. Even if its argument is theoretically correct, it may not be practical. Perhaps within decades the combination of population stabilization and changing technologies trends will bring to a changing the greenhouse gas emission in China and even in other countries that will decrease the amount of emitting as EKC describe. This is however not guarantee that global warming in a way that effect the entire agriculture and economy will