Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
being built to house the homeless. The rate of economic growth is also
closely related to the rate of growth in greenhouse gas emissions.
The Australian economy grew by more than $20 billion dollars during
2003. That is, at the end of 2003 as a nation we had an additional $20 billion
to allocate towards our most pressing problems. On the surface such a fortu-
nate turn of events would appear to provide a good opportunity to address
the shortages of resources available for health care, education and environ-
mental protection. Unfortunately, this was not to be.
In Australia, as with most market economies, economic growth is direc-
tionless. As more and more resources become available they are not neces-
sarily channelled to where they are needed most. In fact, they are just as
likely to be allocated to new 'problems', such as the 'shortage' of mobile
phones or the 'shortage' of flat-screen televisions, as they are to old prob-
lems, such as the shortage of teachers, nurses or public transport infrastruc-
ture. Governments can choose to direct economic growth to where it is most
needed or they can choose to distribute it to individuals to fund increased
consumption expenditure on whatever consumers prefer.
The costs of pursuing economic growth
While much has been written about the harmful effects of past economic
growth on the environment, from a policy point of view it is more important
to focus on the potentially harmful impact of the continued pursuit of eco-
nomic growth.
The important policy question is related to how we can change our eco-
nomic systems and our lifestyles to improve the balance between the
economy and the natural environment. In attempting to answer this ques-
tion, the policy process is constrained by the presumption that economic
growth must always take priority.
Proposals to shift to cleaner forms of energy, reduce industrial pollution
or replace increased road construction with greater investment in public
transport are usually criticised on the basis of their adverse effects on eco-
nomic growth. This criticism usually comes from those who benefit from
the unquestioned pursuit of more economic growth. Even if it were true that
a shift from relying on fossil fuels to a greater reliance on renewable energy
would result in reduced economic growth, it is implicitly assumed that any
environmental benefits associated with the use of clean fuels would be of less
value than the increased consumption expenditure forgone.
