Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
model. The author concluded that the econometric techniques adopted in
the empirical studies were crucial to the results and the level of the turning
points of the EKC.
Ecological thresholds and sustainability
There have been a number of criticisms of the Environmental Kuznets
Curve as it suggests that countries can overcome their environmental
problems for certain pollutants simply by economic growth without
paying attention to the environment and ecological thresholds. The criti-
cisms were started by Arrow et al. (1995), who attributed the existence of
the relationship between income and a selected set of pollutants to the fact
that people in poor countries could not af ord to emphasize environmental
amenities over material well-being. As their standard of living improved
and reached a sui ciently high level, their demand for environmental
amenities increased. This led the governments to create environmental
legislation and institutions to protect the environment. They also said
that while the inverted U-shaped curve indicated that while improvements
of some environmental indicators could be associated with economic
growth, it did not mean that economic growth was sui cient to induce
environmental improvement. Moreover, the ef ects of economic growth
on the earth's resource base should not be ignored as it could not support
indei nite economic growth. In addition, irreversible degradation in this
base could put economic development at risk.
Furthermore, Arrow et al. highlighted that in interpreting the inverted
U-shaped curves, a number of factors should be taken into account. First,
research showed that the inverted U-shaped relationship between income
and environmental quality was only valid for pollutants involving local
and short-term costs (for example, sulphur, particulates and faecal colif-
orms), not for those involving long-term and more dispersed costs (such
as CO
2
). The latter type of pollutants showed in most research that they
had an increasing function with income. Second, the relationship was valid
for emissions of pollutants and not stocks of resources of the earth's base,
such as soil, forests and other ecosystems. Third, the inverted-U curve
relationship did not explain the ef ects of reductions in emissions on the
wider system, in terms of increasing other emissions in the same country
or transferring pollutants to other countries. Fourth, in most cases the
reduction in emissions as income increased was due to local institutional
reforms, such as environmental legislation and governmental policies,
which often ignored the international and intergenerational consequences
on other countries or future generations.
A number of environmentalists and ecological economists commented
on the article by Arrow et al., including Ayres (1995). He rejected the
