essay on sustainable development and environmental protection

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

Essay on Sustainable Development: Samples in 250, 300 and 500 Words

• Updated on  
• Nov 18, 2023

On 3rd August 2023, the Indian Government released its Net zero emissions target policy to reduce its carbon footprints. To achieve the sustainable development goals (SDG) , as specified by the UN, India is determined for its long-term low-carbon development strategy. Selfishly pursuing modernization, humans have frequently compromised with the requirements of a more sustainable environment.

As a result, the increased environmental depletion is evident with the prevalence of deforestation, pollution, greenhouse gases, climate change etc. To combat these challenges, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change launched the National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) in 2019. The objective was to improve air quality in 131 cities in 24 States/UTs by engaging multiple stakeholders.

‘Development is not real until and unless it is sustainable development.’ – Ban Ki-Moon

The concept of Sustainable Development in India has even greater relevance due to the controversy surrounding the big dams and mega projects and related long-term growth. Since it is quite a frequently asked topic in school tests as well as competitive exams , we are here to help you understand what this concept means as well as the mantras to drafting a well-written essay on Sustainable Development with format and examples.

This Blog Includes:

What is sustainable development, 250-300 words essay on sustainable development, 300 words essay on sustainable development, 500 words essay on sustainable development, introduction, conclusion of sustainable development essay, importance of sustainable development, examples of sustainable development.

As the term simply explains, Sustainable Development aims to bring a balance between meeting the requirements of what the present demands while not overlooking the needs of future generations. It acknowledges nature’s requirements along with the human’s aim to work towards the development of different aspects of the world. It aims to efficiently utilise resources while also meticulously planning the accomplishment of immediate as well as long-term goals for human beings, the planet as well and future generations. In the present time, the need for Sustainable Development is not only for the survival of mankind but also for its future protection. 

Looking for ideas to incorporate in your Essay on Sustainable Development? Read our blog on Energy Management – Find Your Sustainable Career Path and find out!

To give you an idea of the way to deliver a well-written essay, we have curated a sample on sustainable development below, with 250-300 words:

To give you an idea of the way to deliver a well-written essay, we have curated a sample on sustainable development below, with 300 + words:

Must Read: Article Writing

To give you an idea of the way to deliver a well-written essay, we have curated a sample on sustainable development below, with 500 + words:

Essay Format

Before drafting an essay on Sustainable Development, students need to get familiarised with the format of essay writing, to know how to structure the essay on a given topic. Take a look at the following pointers which elaborate upon the format of a 300-350 word essay.

Introduction (50-60 words) In the introduction, students must introduce or provide an overview of the given topic, i.e. highlighting and adding recent instances and questions related to sustainable development. Body of Content (100-150 words) The area of the content after the introduction can be explained in detail about why sustainable development is important, its objectives and highlighting the efforts made by the government and various institutions towards it.  Conclusion (30-40 words) In the essay on Sustainable Development, you must add a conclusion wrapping up the content in about 2-3 lines, either with an optimistic touch to it or just summarizing what has been talked about above.

How to write the introduction of a sustainable development essay? To begin with your essay on sustainable development, you must mention the following points:

• What is sustainable development?
• What does sustainable development focus on?
• Why is it useful for the environment?

How to write the conclusion of a sustainable development essay? To conclude your essay on sustainable development, mention why it has become the need of the hour. Wrap up all the key points you have mentioned in your essay and provide some important suggestions to implement sustainable development.

The importance of sustainable development is that it meets the needs of the present generations without compromising on the needs of the coming future generations. Sustainable development teaches us to use our resources in the correct manner. Listed below are some points which tell us the importance of sustainable development.

• Focuses on Sustainable Agricultural Methods – Sustainable development is important because it takes care of the needs of future generations and makes sure that the increasing population does not put a burden on Mother Earth. It promotes agricultural techniques such as crop rotation and effective seeding techniques.
• Manages Stabilizing the Climate – We are facing the problem of climate change due to the excessive use of fossil fuels and the killing of the natural habitat of animals. Sustainable development plays a major role in preventing climate change by developing practices that are sustainable. It promotes reducing the use of fossil fuels which release greenhouse gases that destroy the atmosphere.
• Provides Important Human Needs – Sustainable development promotes the idea of saving for future generations and making sure that resources are allocated to everybody. It is based on the principle of developing an infrastructure that is can be sustained for a long period of time.
• Sustain Biodiversity – If the process of sustainable development is followed, the home and habitat of all other living animals will not be depleted. As sustainable development focuses on preserving the ecosystem it automatically helps in sustaining and preserving biodiversity.
• Financial Stability – As sustainable development promises steady development the economies of countries can become stronger by using renewable sources of energy as compared to using fossil fuels, of which there is only a particular amount on our planet.

Mentioned below are some important examples of sustainable development. Have a look:

• Wind Energy – Wind energy is an easily available resource. It is also a free resource. It is a renewable source of energy and the energy which can be produced by harnessing the power of wind will be beneficial for everyone. Windmills can produce energy which can be used to our benefit. It can be a helpful source of reducing the cost of grid power and is a fine example of sustainable development. 
• Solar Energy – Solar energy is also a source of energy which is readily available and there is no limit to it. Solar energy is being used to replace and do many things which were first being done by using non-renewable sources of energy. Solar water heaters are a good example. It is cost-effective and sustainable at the same time.
• Crop Rotation – To increase the potential of growth of gardening land, crop rotation is an ideal and sustainable way. It is rid of any chemicals and reduces the chances of disease in the soil. This form of sustainable development is beneficial to both commercial farmers and home gardeners.
• Efficient Water Fixtures – The installation of hand and head showers in our toilets which are efficient and do not waste or leak water is a method of conserving water. Water is essential for us and conserving every drop is important. Spending less time under the shower is also a way of sustainable development and conserving water.
• Sustainable Forestry – This is an amazing way of sustainable development where the timber trees that are cut by factories are replaced by another tree. A new tree is planted in place of the one which was cut down. This way, soil erosion is prevented and we have hope of having a better, greener future.

Related Articles

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are a set of 17 global goals established by the United Nations in 2015. These include: No Poverty Zero Hunger Good Health and Well-being Quality Education Gender Equality Clean Water and Sanitation Affordable and Clean Energy Decent Work and Economic Growth Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure Reduced Inequality Sustainable Cities and Communities Responsible Consumption and Production Climate Action Life Below Water Life on Land Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions Partnerships for the Goals

The SDGs are designed to address a wide range of global challenges, such as eradicating extreme poverty globally, achieving food security, focusing on promoting good health and well-being, inclusive and equitable quality education, etc.

India is ranked #111 in the Sustainable Development Goal Index 2023 with a score of 63.45.

Hence, we hope that this blog helped you understand the key features of an essay on sustainable development. If you are interested in Environmental studies and planning to pursue sustainable tourism courses , take the assistance of Leverage Edu ’s AI-based tool to browse through a plethora of programs available in this specialised field across the globe and find the best course and university combination that fits your interests, preferences and aspirations. Call us immediately at 1800 57 2000 for a free 30-minute counselling session

Team Leverage Edu

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Contact no. *

Thanks a lot for this important essay.

NICELY AND WRITTEN WITH CLARITY TO CONCEIVE THE CONCEPTS BEHIND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY.

Thankyou so much!

Leaving already?

8 Universities with higher ROI than IITs and IIMs

Grab this one-time opportunity to download this ebook

Connect With Us

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. take the first step today..

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

September 2024

January 2025

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Introduction of Sustainability, Sustainable Development, and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

What is sustainability.

Sustainability is a well-known and frequently used term of the 21st century. How often do you see or hear the word? Have you ever stopped to really think about what exactly does sustainability mean and where did the term originate from?

A quick Google search for ‘what is sustainability’ yields over 1.9 billion results. Sustainability is widely defined as ‘the ability to be maintained at a certain rate or level’. Embedded in most definitions of sustainability are concerns for the environment, social equity, and economic prosperity(1). Most definitions look to avoid the depletion of natural resources to maintain an ecological balance. Sustainability in the context of the environment looks at the activities required to balance social, economic, and environmental needs to maintain ecosystem services at a suitable level. It is generally accepted, the goals of sustainability are related to the need for the conservation of natural capital and ecosystem services, with a shift to a less resource-intensive future [1] .

While to most, the concept of sustainability is a relatively new idea, sustainability has a long history of use and meaning. The practice of sustainability has been utilized by various cultures for thousands of years, with the term sustainability first used in the 1700’s. Sustainability comes from the practice of  nachhaltigkeit , translated to mean ‘sustained yield’ in English, a term coined in 1713 by German foresters [2] .  Sustained yield refers to the practice of taking only enough trees to allow forests to naturally regenerate well into the future. The concept of sustained yield broadened to include the conservation of plants, animals, and other food necessities, eventually moving beyond the forestry discourse but still mainly confined to research and science.

It was not until the 1970’s that the concept of sustainability became more widely used. In January 1972, the journal the Ecologist published the  Blueprint for Survival , a series of science papers calling for better management of natural resources and modification of consumptive lifestyles of western civilizations. That same year, a global think-tank published the report  Limits to Growth , where a definition was given to the term sustainable. For the first time in the literature, sustainable was defined to mean without sudden and uncontrolled collapse and capable of satisfying the basic material requirements of all its people (2).  Then later that year the United Nations (UN) world conference on  human environment was held Stockholm, Sweden to address the global the growing environmental crisis. The term sustainable development was introduced into the discourse. As evidenced at the UN Conference, the environment was being neglected and not in balance with economic development.

Through the 1980’s, the concept of sustainability became more mainstream. In 1987, former Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland, as chairwoman of what was then the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) released a Report, widely known as the Brundtland’s Commission,  Our Common Future .  The report emphasized the importance that development should consider social, environmental, and economic aspects to ensure the sustainability of all human societies. Her main concern was that development had to meet “the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” [3] . This concept went on to become the most widely used definition of sustainability although in the context of sustainable development.

Although sustainability and sustainable development both consider the environment, society, and economies with a future timeframe, the two terms have very different meanings and should not be used interchangeably.  Sustainability looks at the activities required to protect the environment as our base for survival while balancing social, cultural, and economic needs. It is generally accepted that the goals of sustainability are related to the need to conserve our natural world with a shift away from the resource-intensive current way of living 1 .

What is Sustainable Development?

We learned that sustainability is the process of living within the limits of available physical, natural, and social resources in ways that allow all living things, not only humans to thrive well into the future.

Sustainable development is a process that creates growth and progress through the addition of physical, economic, environmental, and social components to improve quality of life without damaging the resources of the environment. Simply put, sustainable development is a way for people to use resources without the resources running out 3 .

As previously discussed, the concept of sustainable development arrived in 1987 by the Brundtland Commission “Our Common Future”, the document that defined sustainable development as an approach designed to meet the needs of the present [generation] without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs 3 . This definition incorporated the understanding that economic growth is required to provide societies with the necessities of life such as clean water and food, while acknowledging the dilemma of environmental degradation that often coincides with economic development.

In 1992 the UN conference on the environment and development, informally known as the Earth Summit, or the Rio Conference took place in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The conference promoted the idea of ecological sustainable development and in order to achieve it you had to consider social development (communities). From the mid 1990’s, different strategies were developed to try to work out what sustainability means in practice, how do we get that middle area where the environment, economics, and social development are achieved at the same time. Governments alone can not achieve sustainable development. Governments can set regulations and determine infrastructure needs but they don’t tend to have long-term goals in mind, they tend to focus on election cycles which are typically about 4 to 8 years.  The market economies (goods and services) timeframe is usually only about 4 months to a year. Sustainability is about long-term solutions. The market economies and governments can not effectively do this.  If the community is not driving the will for a better more sustainable future, sustainable development will be difficult to achieve. As we previously discussed, the Brundtland Commission’s definition has become a widely used definition for sustainable development and sustainability and has therefore come with many challenges, including confusion over meaning, interpretations, and misinformation.

Recognizing some of the key challenges with the implementation of sustainable development and the quest for achieving a balance between the environment and economies, the role of people and societies were formally added into the equation for sustainable development in 2005 at the UN World Summit on Social Development. The three pillars of sustainability became widely known and currently used today:

(Click on the “?” icons below for more information):

This updated model for sustainable development recognizes that in order to meet the needs of current and future generations you have to consider the three pillars or the 3P’s (people, planet, prosperity), and they all need to be working together at the same. The key being all at the same time, or simultaneously.

Integrating the short-term and long-term needs with a focus on future generations, will require social development, environmental protection, and economic prosperity working in unison. Being able to incorporate sustainability into your day to day activities, this is what will create change.

The United Nations and the Path to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

History of the un.

Direct Source

The United Nations is an international organization founded in 1945 after the Second World War by 51 countries committed to maintaining international peace and security, developing friendly relations among nations, and promoting social progress, better living standards and human rights.

Due to its unique international character, and the powers vested in its founding Charter, the Organization can take action on a wide range of issues and provide a forum for its 193 Member States to express their views, through the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council and other bodies and committees.

The work of the United Nations reaches every corner of the globe. Although best known for peacekeeping, peace-building, conflict prevention and humanitarian assistance, there are many other ways the United Nations and its System (specialized agencies, funds, and programmes) affect our lives and make the world a better place. The Organization works on a broad range of fundamental issues, from sustainable development, environment and refugees protection, disaster relief, counter terrorism, disarmament and non-proliferation, to promoting democracy, human rights, gender equality and the advancement of women, governance, economic and social development and international health, clearing landmines, expanding food production, and more, in order to achieve its goals and coordinate efforts for a safer world for this and future generations.

The UN has 4 main purposes:

• To keep peace throughout the world;
• To develop friendly relations among nations;
• To help nations work together to improve the lives of poor people, to conquer hunger, disease, and illiteracy, and to encourage respect for each other’s rights and freedoms;
• To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations to achieve these goals

Pathway to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

In 2015, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development was adopted by 193 United Nations (UN) Member States. The 2030 Agenda is centered on the 17 SDGs which are underpinned by the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).  The MDGs were developed in 2000 to end poverty and hunger, fight inequality and injustice, advance climate change action, create sustainable consumption and production, and promote peace and prosperity for all.  One major change between the MDGs versus the SDGs is that for the SDGs, all countries are now involved. The MDGs only applied to developing countries. Another difference is that each country has set their own goals and priorities for achieving the SDGs.  International collaboration to advance the SDG Agenda remains a critical component. The 17 SD goals, with their 169 targets, and over 230 indicators work together at the local and international level to help promote a shared global framework to achieve a fair, equitable, and sustainable future for all. Currently, all countries and international organizations are working on the achievement of the UN 2030 Agenda serving as the basis for better economic development that is environmentally low impact, socially just, and economically efficient and fair.

Pathway to the SDGs

Comprehension Questions

Recommended reading.

• Sustainable Development Solutions Network. (2021). Sustainable Development Report 2021: The Decade of Action for the Sustainable Development Goals .

Additional Readings

• Brundtland G, Khalid M. 1987. UN Brundtland commission report.  Our Common Future .  41-59.
• Kidd C. V. 1992.  The evolution of sustainability .  Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics , 5(1), 1-26.
• Baker, J., Dupont, D., & Vasseur, L. (2021). Exploring Canadian Ramsar Sites Ecosystem Governance and Sustainability. Wetlands, 41(1), 1-11. ↵
• Grober, U. (2007). Deep roots-a conceptual history of sustainable development (Nachhaltigkeit) . ↵
• United Nations. (2021). 1987 Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future (page 41) . ↵

Introduction to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Copyright © by Jocelyn Baker is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

The costs and benefits of environmental sustainability

1 UCL Institute of Sustainable Resources, University College London, London, UK

Dimitri Zenghelis

2 London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK

The natural science in GEO-6 makes clear that a range and variety of unwelcome outcomes for humanity, with potentially very significant impacts for human health, become increasingly likely if societies maintain their current development paths. This paper assesses what is known about the likely economic implications of either current trends or the transformation to a low-carbon and resource-efficient economy in the years to 2050 for which GEO-6 calls. A key conclusion is that no conventional cost–benefit analysis for either scenario is possible. This is because the final cost of meeting various decarbonisation and resource-management pathways depends on decisions made today in changing behaviour and generating innovation. The inadequacies of conventional modelling approaches generally lead to understating the risks from unmitigated climate change and overstating the costs of a low-carbon transition, by missing out the cumulative gains from path-dependent innovation. This leads to a flawed conclusion as to how to respond to the climate emergency, namely that significant reductions in emissions are prohibitively expensive and, therefore, to be avoided until new, cost-effective technologies are developed. We argue that this is inconsistent with the evidence and counterproductive in serving to delay decarbonisation efforts, thereby increasing its costs. Understanding the processes which drive innovation, change social norms and avoid locking in to carbon- and resource-intensive technologies, infrastructure and behaviours, will help decision makers as they ponder how to respond to the increasingly stark warnings of natural scientists about the deteriorating condition of the natural environment.

Introduction

The sixth UN Global Environment Outlook (GEO-6) (UNEP 2019 ) focused on the close relationship between human and environmental health, presenting much evidence that a healthy planet is necessary for healthy people and that, conversely, an unhealthy planet damages human health. This paper echoes, and indeed adds to, the findings of GEO-6 by setting out the benefits to early policy action, not only to limit potentially catastrophic environmental risks, but also to shape new markets, create business opportunities and induce new technologies and behaviours which will benefit society beyond their environmental value. Section “ The costs of ‘grow now, clean up later’ ” of the paper reviews the evidence from GEO-6 and elsewhere of the costs of environmental damage resulting from a still largely dominant global development model of ‘grow now, clean up later’. This describes the approach through which societies’ efforts to achieve economic growth damage natural systems and their environmental functions, reducing their ability to deliver multiple benefits in terms of ecosystem goods and services, entailing costs to health, with knock-on effects on human societies and economies. These costs could be much amplified if global warming induces climate ‘tipping points’, feedback effects through which warming itself is amplified. GEO-6 did not investigate this in detail, but evidence is now beginning to emerge as to the extra costs that these tipping points could entail.

The costs of environmental damage become the benefits of environmental protection and restoration, if they are thereby mitigated or avoided. There are three broad environmental strategies to deliver these benefits, the ‘triple-de’: decarbonisation , to reduce the level of global warming; detoxification , to reduce the emissions or impacts of other pollutants; and dematerialisation , to reduce the environmental impacts associated with resource extraction, conversion and processing. Section “ The costs of environmental protection ” of the paper explores the issue as to what the implementation of ‘triple-de’ strategies would cost with a focus on attempts to model the costs of decarbonisation. This is seen to hinge on the role of innovation—in technologies, behaviours and institutions—that makes the costs endogenous to the policy approach taken; the costs associated with the transition to a sustainable economy will be a function of today’s decisions. The paper also considers the costs of locking in to environmentally damaging technologies, behaviours and institutions that then have to be abandoned or retrofitted—costs that are avoided if economic development and clean environmental performance are managed together working with the investment cycle. The final section concludes and draws recommendations for decision-makers.

The costs of ‘grow now, clean up later’

The common policy approach to economic development has been to concentrate on getting rich first, and hope to have the resources to fix the environment later—the ‘grow now, clean up later’ mind set. This is the way the old industrial countries did it, and the standard assumption, especially in developing and emerging economies, and despite increasing rhetoric espousing ‘sustainable development’ and the Paris Agreement, is that there is no better way to develop economically.

Notwithstanding the benefits that economic growth has brought millions of people in both old industrial and emerging economies—lifting them out of poverty, reducing infant mortality and other preventable deaths, increasing life expectancy, literacy, access to water and sanitation, eradication of diseases—evidence in respect of the environment and natural resources now suggests that this approach has brought human societies to the brink of catastrophe, putting at serious risk all these benefits and, indeed, the continuance of human civilisation itself. This section will explore these risks, and the current costs that accompany them. It will reveal the new priorities of human development to be detoxification, decarbonisation and dematerialisation.

The irony is that the assumption that countries at an early stage of development need to suffer gross pollution to get richer flies in the face of more than two decades of evidence, as will be seen.

The costs of ‘clean up later ’

Early evidence.

One of the earliest papers to investigate the assumption that pollution was a necessary accompaniment to early growth was O’Connor ( 1996 ), who tested it in respect of the newly industrialising or recently industrialised economies of East and South East Asia. He considered the environmental dimension of the growth process of Japan, what were then called ‘the four dragons’—Hong Kong, Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore—and some later industrialising countries in the region (Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand). He reviewed evidence on relative pollution intensity and energy intensity, estimates of the environmental damage costs incurred by these East Asian economies and how these related to actual measured output, and evidence on environmental expenditures in these countries, both actual and projected. His conclusions were startling. He found that all the countries studied had to some extent taken a ‘grow now, clean up later’ approach, but some markedly more so than others.

What was clear was that the countries with the more pollution-intensive growth patterns later faced significant challenges that could constrain future growth through “rapidly escalating external costs from accumulated pollution damage and/or rapidly escalating investments in remediation of that damage” (p.15). Moreover, there was no evidence at all that the countries which had invested early in pollution control along with their industrialisation (e.g. Hong Kong and Singapore) had suffered lower growth rates than those countries that had invested much less. The oft-hypothesised growth-environment trade-off at early stages of development was simply not apparent in the data.

O’Connor 1996 (pp.31–32) identifies a number of reasons why it may be more expensive to address pollution problems after they have been created rather than preventing them from occurring. Most obviously, collecting and treating waste is likely to be cheaper before it is widely dispersed in the natural environment. But there are also issues related to abatement costs. Cleaning up polluting plant usually involves either scrapping equipment before its due date, or retrofitting it, or fitting end-of-pipe treatment technology. It will often be the case that initial investment in cleaner, if initially more expensive, technology that avoids these extra costs, ‘leap-frogging’ the phase of gross pollution, can be economically preferable.

Moreover, the ‘lock-in’ from past investments, especially in infrastructure, may mean that environmental improvement can only gradually be achieved leaving a long period of high environmental costs that could have been avoided with different initial infrastructure decisions. O’Connor ( 1996 , p.36) also cites evidence that much environmental improvement can be achieved through measures with very low payback times that make economic sense in their own right. All this leads him to conclude that any negative effects from increased environmental expenditures “should be largely if not wholly offset by the positive effect on the productivity of public and private sector investments, through the mitigation of health and other pollution damages” (p.34). Unsurprisingly, he finds no evidence of slower economic growth in those Asian countries (e.g. Hong Kong, Singapore) that have considered environmental as well as economic performance compared with those that have not.

Evidence since 2010

Unfortunately, despite the evidence cited above, this lesson is far from learned. A book-length study by the World Bank of India’s environmental and economic development record (Mani 2014 ) asserts, (p.4): “The “grow now, clean up later” doctrine, though much debated, is now widely discredited by the experiences of many developing countries.” But much of the subsequent text goes to show that the ‘doctrine’ is still very much in evidence in the state of India’s air, water and ecosystems. The report puts the “total cost of environmental degradation in India” at 5.7% of India’s GDP (mid-point, range 2.6–8.8%), comprising costs from outdoor and indoor air pollution (29% and 21% respectively), from inadequate water supply, sanitation and hygiene (14%) and degradation of cropland (19%), pasture (11%) and forests (4%) (percentages are of the mid-point damages).

More recently, the comprehensive assessment of the health impacts of global pollution of Landrigan et al. ( 2018 ) shows just how few lessons have been learned since the 1990s. They estimate that pollution-related disease was responsible for 16% of total global mortality, or 254 million years of life lost, in 2015. As shown in Fig.  1 , this number is considerably greater than the estimated deaths from a number of other causes that have a much higher public profile. The total welfare damages of this pollution burden have been estimated for 2015 at USD4.6 trillion, equivalent to 6.2% of global GDP (Landrigan et al. 2018 , p.487). Landrigan et al. ( 2018 ) echo the findings of O’Connor some 20 years earlier:

“The claim that pollution control stifles economic growth and that poor countries must pass through a phase of pollution and disease on the road to prosperity has repeatedly been proven to be untrue. … Many of the pollution control strategies that have proven cost-effective in high-income and middle-income countries can be exported and adapted by cities and countries at every level of income.” (Landrigan et al. 2018 , p.463).

Global estimate deaths in 2015 by major risk factor and cause; Source: Landrigan et al. 2018, Fig. 5, p.473

Detoxification, it seems, often makes economic sense quite apart from the welfare benefits of resulting in healthier people. The next section shows that the arguments for decarbonisation are just as strong.

The ‘fat-tailed’ costs of climate change

The estimates of possible damages from climate change are so large they are difficult to comprehend. The IPCC 1.5 °C report made clear that even going beyond a temperature increase of 1.5 °C would significantly increase the risks of substantial damage from climate change, and cites estimates of the extra damage caused in 2100 by 2 °C as opposed to 1.5 °C as USD 15–38.5 trillion (2.3–3.5% of Gross World Product) (IPCC 2018 , p.256).

Steffen et al. ( 2018 ) have investigated in detail the various planetary thresholds that may act as ‘tipping points’, at different levels of global warming, into a Hothouse Earth. The colours in their ‘Global map of potential tipping cascades’ illustrate the average global temperature increases at which that particular feature may tip into a different state. The arrows, based on expert elicitation, indicate how the activation of some tipping points by a relatively low level of global warming (e.g. melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet at 1–3 °C) could push the global average temperature higher, activating further tipping points such as the thermohaline circulation, thereby causing a tipping point ‘cascade’ effect.

Of course, there is very great uncertainty about the precise magnitude of these effects, and it is probably best to think of these numbers in terms of risk, in this case the risk from a probability distribution that has a ‘fat-tailed’ probability of very large costs. Weitzman emphasised the “truly extraordinary uncertainty about the aggregate welfare impacts of catastrophic climate change, which is represented mathematically by a PDF that is spread out and heavy with probability in the tails.” (Weitzman 2011 , p.285).

To emphasise further how difficult people find it to act consistently in the face of such uncertainty, consider Table ​ Table1, 1 , from Wagner and Weitzman ( 2015 ).

Probabilities of exceeding an average global temperature increase of 6 °C at different atmospheric concentrations of GHGs; Source: Wagner and Weitzman 2015 , Table 3.1, p.54.

Using the IPCC’s ‘likely’ climate sensitivity, Table ​ Table1 1 shows the median temperature increase at different levels of atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO 2 e), but also the probability that the temperature increase will be more than 6 °C—which Wagner and Weitzman call ‘an indisputable global catastrophe’ (Wager and Weitzman 2015, p.88). This probability is seen to be 11% at an atmospheric GHG concentration of 700 ppm, which is in line with the IEA’s projection for 2100 even if governments kept their then current promises (cited in Wager and Weitzman 2015, p.55). But they also give a 0.3% chance of exceeding a 6 °C temperature increase at 450 ppm, which is roughly the current atmospheric GHG concentration.

To put this in perspective, it may be noted that in 2018 there were around 38 million aircraft flights per year (ICAO 2018 ), with one fatal accident every three million flights, 1 a probability of 0.000033%. A 0.3% probability of a fatal accident would mean over 300 fatal accidents each day . How many people would fly given that kind of accident rate reported daily on the news? Yet that is the risk human societies are currently taking in respect of catastrophic climate change. Such risk taking becomes even more bizarre when it is considered that the health benefits just from reduced local air pollution of achieving the 2 °C target could be 1.4–2.5 times the cost of mitigation, the higher figure involving benefits of USD 54.1 trillion for a global expenditure of USD 22.1 trillion (UNEP 2019 , Box 24.1, p.588). Deep decarbonisation makes sense whether looked at from the point of view of global insurance against catastrophe for future generations, or health benefits for those currently alive.

The costs of resources

The ‘grow now, clean up later’ mind set has not only been cavalier in respect of pollution and indifferent to the greenhouse gas emissions causing climate change, it has also been extraordinarily wasteful in its use of resources, through a related mind set of ‘take-make-use-dispose’. The ‘grow now, clean up later’ economy has also been a linear, throw-away economy, as attested by the mountains of garbage and oceans of plastic that are now in evidence almost everywhere.

The Global Resources Outlook of the International Resource Panel (IRP 2019a ; b ) has documented the growth of resource use since 1970 and associated environmental impacts. Since 1970 global material use has more than tripled from 27 billion tonnes to 92 billion tonnes, with biomass increasing from 9.1 to 24.1 billion tonnes, fossil fuels from 6.2 to 15.0 billion tonnes, metal ores from 2.6 to 9.1 billion tonnes, and non-metallic minerals, the greatest proportionate increase due to its importance in infrastructure construction, from 9.2 to 43.8 billion tonnes (IRP 2019a , p.43–44).

This extractive activity is associated with very large environmental impacts, as shown in Fig.  2 . Biomass production alone (mainly agriculture) is responsible for nearly 90% of biodiversity loss and water stress. Extraction (including fossil fuels) is also responsible for 50% of greenhouse gas emissions and 30% of particulate matter health impacts. Yet these industries only contribute around 20% of global value added.

Environmental and economic impacts of resource extraction, compared with households and the rest of the economy; Source: IRP 2019b, Figure II, p.16

On current trends global material extraction would double again by 2060 to 190 billion tonnes, with greenhouse gas emissions increasing by 43%, and cropland and pasture land increasing by 20% and 25% respectively, with forests and other natural habitat decreasing by 10% and 20% respectively (IRP 2019a , Sect. 4.2, pp.102ff.). Many populations will experience water scarcity, with growing competition for water between cities and agriculture. It is very unlikely that the Earth’s natural systems would sustain this kind of increase in natural resource extraction and the associated environmental impacts. A liveable future will demand dematerialisation of the economy, particularly a decoupling between economic growth and resource use, and an absolute reduction in the environmental impacts of resource extraction of all kinds (how to achieve this is discussed in section “ The costs of environmental protection ”).

The age of irreversibility

While the ‘grow now, clean up later’ approach was always economically unsound, more recently it has become theoretically unsound as well. At a local level, it is possible for a time to substitute natural capital for physical capital and boost prosperity, as arguably the UK did during the industrial revolution. But at a global level this is not possible. With climate change and biodiversity loss, there is no return to the status quo ante . There is no ‘later’. Extinction is forever, with the Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) suggesting that:

“around 1 million species already face extinction, many within decades, unless action is taken …. Without such action there will be a further acceleration in the global rate of species extinction, which is already at least tens to hundreds of times higher than it has averaged over the past 10 million years.” (IPBES 2019 , pp.2–3).

GEO-6 chronicles a terrible record of environmental damage from biodiversity loss (including pollinators, coral reefs and mangroves), climate change and other air pollution, water pollution, ocean pollution and depletion, and land use change. As with ecosystem goods and services, these costs are difficult to express comprehensively in monetary or other terms, but GEO-6 confirms the level of many of the costs involved cited earlier (page numbers in what follows refer to GEO-6): For example, exposure to indoor/outdoor air and water pollution costs at least 9 million lives annually (p.78). Millions more suffer from ill-health and loss of livelihoods. Pollution-related costs have been estimated at USD 4.6 trillion annually (p.9). 29% of global land area is classed as a ‘land degradation hotspot’, affecting 3.2 billion people (p.203) and costing USD 6.3–10.6 trillion (p.374).

While no individual weather event can be attributed to a warming climate, the frequency and severity of extreme events are increasing due to a warming climate. As Lomborg ( 2020 ) notes, even similar events to those in the past are now more damaging because of both economic and population growth. Between 2010 and 2016, an average of around 700 extreme events each year cost an average of USD 127 billion per annum (Watts et al. 2017 , pp. 615–616). While 90% of the losses came from high and upper-middle income countries, the less than 1% of the losses from low-income countries amounted to around 1.5% of their GDP, a much higher proportion than in high-income countries, and was almost all uninsured. Gupta and Ekins in UNEP 2019 (p.xxix) cite estimates of water-related health costs of about USD140 billion in lost earnings and USD 56 billion in health costs annually. From 1995 to 2014, 700,000 people died and 1.7 billion people were affected by extreme weather events costing USD 1.4 trillion (UNEP 2019 , Fig. 4.1, p.80). As with biodiversity loss, the committed climate change that exacerbates these events is irreversible. They will continue to ravage human communities, perhaps with increased intensity, for the foreseeable future.

There is no doubt the scale of the ‘triple-de’ challenge is ambitious. Carbon-based fossil fuels have powered most of the world’s economic activity for more than two hundred years, since the use of coal to fire steam engines induced the Industrial Revolution. Oil, gas and coal currently make up almost 80% of primary energy use. [World Energy Outlook Special Report 2017: Energy and Climate Change, International Energy Agency] It therefore seems reasonable to ask what will be the cost of decarbonisation, detoxification, dematerialisation and repurposing infrastructure and behaviours to deliver a sustainable economy?

The costs of environmental protection

The focus of this section is the costs associated with the task of tackling climate change and promoting sustainability noting that all environmental concerns are exacerbated by climate risks. We begin by noting that it is the stock of greenhouse gases that causes global warming, not the annual emissions. This means that keeping the global temperature at any level means transitioning to a net zero emissions world, because it is by definition the only way to stabilise the stock so the temperature will stop rising. This means humanity either manages the transition to temperature stabilisation or nature does it for us by depopulating and deindustrialising the planet.

If humanity chooses swift decarbonisation in line with the target of the Paris Agreement, many of the behaviours, technological networks and institutions of the last century look set to be devalued or stranded. Economies which are disproportionately dependent on fossil fuels in their production and trade may have higher transition costs than others, particularly where they lack flexible and responsive institutions (this is a problem for some gulf states, but even for more diversified but still ‘carbon entangled’ states like Russia, Nigeria, Kazakhstan, Indonesia or Poland). In other cases, such as coal in India or oil in Venezuela, fossil fuel-based organisations provide a significant part of the formal or informal welfare state of a nation or region. Such fossil fuel–dependent countries represent almost one-third of the world’s population (Peszko et al. 2020 ). Many have weak and inflexible institutions, limited access to global finance and pressing challenges of poverty, conflict and violence.

Having accepted the imperative of a low-carbon transition, it is necessary to acknowledge, up-front, that large-scale change will mean winners and losers and the losers will suffer dislocation. A quick scan of the global political economy tells us that these concerns need to be carefully managed. Because they can lead to delay, backlash, resistance and resource wastage. Indeed, they can make it hard for any economy to adjust to the forces of technological and structural change. Understanding the political economy is therefore necessary to manage change and enable all participants to profit from improved economic and social conditions. However, these concerns should not be falsely conflated with economic concerns regarding the true potential of environmental policies if implemented. It is the task of policymakers to limit the perceived reasons to slow or block necessary change.

Ensuring a just transition will be crucial for maintaining social cohesion and economic justice and enabling the climate transition to unfold. This requires enabling institutions that reskill, retool and compensate affected workers. It also requires policy responses to compensate consumers who face disproportionately higher costs (for example through temporary increases in energy or transport bills) and policy support for people living in towns and peripheral regions away from more dynamic urban centres better placed to manage change.

Economic theory and history also suggest that economies that embrace change, with diversified assets and flexible institutions are better able to manage structural adjustment (Zenghelis et al. 2018 ). Such economies do not inhibit the flow of resources from declining, low-productivity sectors to new, more productive sectors. They encourage, manage and steer it to gain competitive advantage (see Combes and Zenghelis 2014 ).

This section builds on this historical evidence and argues that addressing our resource and environmental challenges necessitates rapid innovation in technologies, behaviours and institutions. Section “ Innovation, endogeneity and path-dependency ” explains the dynamics of innovation and the opportunities to profit deliberately from its path-dependent nature.

As we find better ways of consuming, producing and living, we are likely to see complementary changes in behaviour, institutions and social norms (Section “ Induced innovation and learning-by-doing ”). In section “ Networks, spillovers and contagion ”, we will highlight the numerous immediate co-benefits associated with a transition. These, together with incentives from new policy drivers, are key to pushing early voluntary action on decarbonisation and resource efficiency based on near-term self-interest. For example, sprawling, congested, polluted cities with inefficient infrastructure and outmoded energy technologies do not in general attract highly skilled labour and act as a drag on GDP growth and wellbeing. This challenges the fallacy that a transition to a carbon–neutral economy is bound to make us worse off before it makes us better off. As expectations overcome inertia, tipping points can lead to rapid network shifts in key technologies and behaviours (Section “ Feedbacks in preferences, behaviour and expectations ”). This is not the context of standard growth models (Section “ Innovation, endogeneity and path-dependency ”) which struggle to capture structural change and integrate dynamic, increasing returns. Such models have a structural bias that tends to systematically overestimate costs of transition.

Overstating costs undermines the case for early action (Section “ What does this mean for ‘green growth’? ”). But it also delays investment and innovation necessary to facilitate a cost-effective transition. When change does come, governments and businesses caught unprepared risk being saddled with stranded assets and uncompetitive, outmoded forms of production. We conclude by showing that the virtuous dynamics associated with an accelerated and productive transition are unlikely to materialise without leadership to steer investment and innovation (Section “ Ways forward ”).

Innovation, endogeneity and path-dependency

Innovation is essential in determining our ability to decouple growth and consumption from environmental degradation and resource use. Several climate economic models have attempted to incorporate innovation (see, for example, Popp 2004 and Bosetti et al. 2006 ). However, these models usually miss out important firm-level and sector-specific processes, spillovers and interactions or the role for mission-orientated, targeted R&D efforts.

Innovation does not just ‘happen’. It relies on path dependencies of three kinds: (1) research and development, (2) deployment and uptake, (3) network effects and economies of scale (Aghion et al. 2014). Strong inertia and high switching costs make it initially difficult to shift the innovation system from dirty to clean technologies without direct policy intervention. But once they reach a tipping point where expectations change rapidly and technologies switch from one network to another, these effects go the other way (Krugman 1991 ; Matsuyama 1991 ).

Induced innovation and learning-by-doing

Positive and reinforcing feedbacks derived from reduced technology cost accelerate further deployment and investment in supporting networks, infrastructure and institutions. Indeed, this arises specifically because of powerful network effects and high switching costs. Investments in enabling infrastructure spur technology tipping points through generating network externalities. For example, as electric vehicle infrastructure is rolled out, the incentives to conduct research and development on electric cars increase relative to combustion engine (or fuel cell) vehicles.

Networks, spillovers and contagion

Hidalgo et al. ( 2007 ) and Mealy and Teytelboym ( 2017 ) used network analysis to demonstrate that it is easier for countries to become competitive in new green products that require similar production capabilities and know-how to existing sectors. As a result, green transitions are highly path-dependent: countries which successfully invest early in green capabilities have greater success in diversifying into future green product markets. This reinforced the findings of Aghion et al. ( 2012 ) who provide empirical evidence that a firm’s choice whether to innovate clean or dirty is influenced by the practice of the countries where its researchers/inventors are located and that firms tend to direct innovation toward what they are already good at.

Braun et al. ( 2010 ) use OECD patent data to show that both wind and solar technologies create knowledge spillovers at the national level. Using data on 1 million patents and 3 million citations, Dechezlepretre et al. ( 2014 ) suggest that spillovers from low-carbon innovation are over 40 percent greater than from conventional technologies (in the energy production and transportation sectors). These effects, plus the cost savings as new networks and institutions are established, explain why Acemoglu et al. ( 2012 ) make a powerful theoretical case to suggest that policy to support clean innovation can be temporary, because once the “clean innovation machine” has been “switched on and is running,” it can be more innovative and productive than the conventional alternative, with a positive impact on GDP levels and growth.

These findings suggest governments should focus on areas where they have complementary advantage and prioritise early targeted R&D in these sectors. It also suggests that low-carbon investment can ‘crowd in’ productive investment and generate growth. Policy can thereby influence both the direction and pace of change (Fischer and Newell, 2008 ; Farmer and Lafond, 2016 ). Policy should aim to catalyse change in technology networks and behaviours while generating knowledge spillovers by focusing less on static market failures and more on dynamic ‘market creation’ and ‘market shaping’. This is likely to require that new policy frameworks and institutions be re-purposed strategically so as to steer the economy in a sustainable and resilient direction, for example through the creation of new low-carbon regulatory bodies and public investment banks with strong sustainability mandates.

Feedbacks in preferences, behaviour and expectations

A key source of path dependence in socioeconomic systems is the presence of ‘complementarities’ in expectation formation. This occurs when the payoff to the whole group from working together is greater than the sum of the individual payoffs. In particular, ‘strategic complementarities’ arise when agents make individual decisions that affect each other’s welfare and one agent’s greater productivity makes all the other agents more productive. Research and development externalities (Romer 1990 ) and learning spillovers (Arrow 1962 ) in low-carbon technologies have these features—as more scientists start thinking about clean energy, more ideas and innovations emerge that other scientists can use. But technology is not the only source of rapid change and innovation. Behavioural, institutional and social innovation can guide demand-side factors relating to consumer preferences (Boyd et al. 2015 ).

Social norms can be defined as the predominant behaviour within a society, supported by a shared understanding of acceptable actions and sustained through social interactions (Ostrom 2000 ). Social feedbacks help make norms self-reinforcing and therefore stable. Formal institutions struggle to enforce collectively desirable outcomes without popular support. Acceptable standards of behaviour and social norms are the sources of law and ultimate drivers of legislative change (Posner 1997 ).

Regulations, taxes, subsidies or infrastructure investment such as cycle lanes or dense housing and public transport can aid the process of shifting norms. Build cycle lanes and people will buy bicycles. A potentially powerful role for policy is to provide reasons for people to change their expectations and behaviours (Young 2015 ). Social psychologists have long understood that solving coordination problems requires building expectations into models and generating ‘common knowledge.’ (Thomas et al. 2014 ). In low and middle-income countries, this can take the form of political processes that confer authority and capacity on public institutions not only to diffuse new innovations but also to generate agglomeration hubs (Collier 2017 ). This can help implement the legal and fiscal frameworks, as well as skills and infrastructure, to attract international knowledge through multi-national inward investment, trade and foreign finance. Institutional development is central to enable technological innovation, adoption and growth (Easterly and Levine 2003 ). It also allows domestic innovation to be diffused through universities, research institutes and high value-added urban employment. Far from acting as a constraint, decarbonisation may afford low-income countries an opportunity to accelerate growth by breaking new ground without relying on incremental change to legacy infrastructure which they lack. Analogous to the spread of mobile telephony, developing countries can leapfrog developed economies and increase access to basic electricity services by bypassing expensive and inefficient centralised electricity grid infrastructure and investing instead in distributed energy platforms (Alstone et al. 2015 ; Levin and Thomas 2016 ).

In all countries of all income levels, local technology clusters create positive spillover effects of lowering information, transaction and installation costs (Porter 2000 ). One study showed how social networks and dwelling proximity explained the clustering of photovoltaic panel installation by homeowners (Rogers 2010 ). Changing social norms can also add to the costs of polluting by putting pressure on legislators, as well as influencing strategic decision-making contexts, such as in the financial sector.

Investment norms can also shift as investors begin to perceive risk in high-carbon resource-intensive sectors previously deemed safe, for fear that assets (resources, physical infrastructure, human capital and intangible know-how) might become devalued or stranded in coming decades. Meanwhile, the risk premium attached to investment in clean sectors, previously considered exotic, falls as these are seen as more resilient to a low-carbon resource-constrained future (Bradshaw 2015 ; Zenghelis 2016 ). Pension funds and insurance companies are correspondingly cutting support for coal projects (Financial Times 2018 ). Meanwhile clean sectors outperform their peers in terms of financial returns (Friede et al. 2015 ; Clark et al. 2015 ). Governments should work to push firms and public institutions to better integrate climate risk assessment into investment decisions, through mandated disclosure standards and scenarios for stress-testing resilience to rapid future decarbonisation.

The point here is that actual or expected changes in policy, technology and physical risks—as well as the threat of litigation for loss and damage from climate change—could prompt a rapid reassessment of the value of a large range of assets as changing costs and opportunities become apparent (Stern and Zenghelis 2016 ). For many low- and middle-income countries, failure to act early could mean: markets are closed off to their products because they do not meet new standards and regulations in export markets, or they face border tax adjustments; higher costs of capital as multilateral and other investment banks withdraw from carbon-intensive sectors, and competitiveness declines as a result of being saddled with less productive or redundant legacy technologies. This raises the cost of ‘pollute now clean up later’ strategies and enhances the risk of early yet avoidable financial loss and the locking in to stranded assets, while accelerating the cost-effective transition to a clean economy.

Co-benefits and opportunities as a trigger

Changing expectations hold the key to overcoming inertia and unblocking a waiting game. This is underpinned by a growing appreciation of additional opportunities associated with a low-carbon transition (Hale 2018 ). These include not only commercial opportunities associated with deploying (and fabricating and exporting) cheap and increasingly competitive new clean technologies, but also benefits from reductions in waste and inefficiency, improved energy security and reduced particulate pollution and congestion from clean compact cities.

Not only are pollution externalities not priced, but environmentally degrading activities continue to be actively encouraged by policy. IEA estimates that in 2015 subsidies to fossil fuels were twice as large as those to renewables (van Asselt and Kulovesi 2017 ). Coady et al. ( 2015 ) estimate that eliminating subsidies for fossil fuels would have reduced global carbon emissions in 2013 by 21% while boosting net public revenues by 4% and reducing deaths from local air pollution by 55%.

The Global Commission on the Economy and Climate ( 2014 ) found that more than half and as much as 90% of the global emissions reductions required to meet an ambitious climate target could generate net benefits to the economy. These include health benefits from reductions in urban pollution, falls in traffic congestion, increases in efficiency or improvements in energy security and supply. Hallegatte et al. ( 2012 ) argue that compared with business-as-usual, green growth would mean immediate positive effects on the economy, such as co-benefits (e.g. reduced local pollution), growth in new ‘green’ sectors, and less energy price volatility via reduced dependence on fossil fuel imports. Higher income generates resources for investment in environmental quality and poverty eradication (Hepburn and Bowen 2013 ).

Complementarities, cascades and tipping points

Changes in expectations can overcome the burdens of history to become self-fulfilling. As enough players shift investment to deploy new technologies, learning and experience will push their price down, making further investment increasingly attractive relative to conventional technologies, where the gains from additional learning or scaling are smaller.

Very quickly, an economy can switch from one technology network to another as a newcomer becomes more attractive than the incumbent, until incumbent technologies, products and networks become obsolete. (Otto and Donges 2019 ).

Failure to model the dynamics and positive feedbacks associated with structural change, not only in terms of economies of scale from production and discovery, but also the complementarities and feedbacks associated with contagion and systems tips, are the reasons why most economists have been caught out by the rapid nature of the early phases of the post-carbon transition. Figure  3 shows forecasts made by the International Energy Agency (IEA) for the deployment of renewable technologies compared with actual outturns. The IEA is arguably the leading authority on energy technologies, yet they systematically and repeatedly underestimate the deployment of renewables and correspondingly overestimate the costs.

IEA renewable capacity forecasts, ex-hydropower; Source: Metayer, Breyer and Fell, 2015 ( https://www.lut.fi/documents/10633/70751/The-projections-for-the-future-and-quality-in-the-past-of-the-World-Energy-Outlook-for-solar-PV-and-other-renewable-energy-technologies-EWG-WEO-Study-2015.pdf )

The IEA are not alone. Few economists predicted the precipitous fall in the price of renewable technologies. Solar photovoltaic (PV) costs fell 44 per cent 2 in the two years to the end of August 2017 and have fallen by 83 per cent since 2010, 3 a period over which the price of wind turbines has dropped 35 per cent. 4 They have already become the cheapest source of energy in many world regions (Fig.  4 ). And the rate of change shows no sign of slowing. Regardless of the impact on emissions, the world now faces the prospect of cheaper energy and transport costs than would otherwise have been the case. The market alone would not have delivered this and no models predicted it. These opportunities can crowd-in resources to pay for more expensive but necessary technologies, such as large-scale direct air capture technologies.

Renewables, levelized cost $/MWh, 2018 real.

Source Bloomberg NEF: country weighted average using latest capacity additions. Storage based on utility-scale Li-ion battery running at a daily cycle and includes charging costs assumed to be 60% of wholesale power price in each country

A decade ago, to the authors’ knowledge, no one predicted that renewables would become the dominant source of energy investment by the second decade of this century, surpassing coal, oil, gas, nuclear and hydro combined. 5 Few predicted the expansion in LED lighting from less than 5 per cent to more than 40 per cent of the global market in the past 6 years. 6 Yet the processes underlying these developments are predictable, and may be expected to apply to some of today’s frontier technologies such as green hydrogen.

All this suggests that structural shifts, when they happen, can progress surprisingly fast following a long period of apparent inaction and inertia. This further highlights the importance to policymakers of explicitly integrating co-benefits, uncertainties, path dependencies and irreversible thresholds into their comprehensive project assessments, recognising the limitations of standard cost–benefit analysis. 7

The limitations of standard economic models

The prevalence of reinforcing feedbacks and tipping dynamics largely invalidates traditional analytical approaches based on assumed patterns of incremental change taking the world as given as embodied in IAMs. As a result, not only are models’ power to inform policy limited, for example by missing the effect of credibility on the formation of expectations, but also the expected costs of decarbonisation will likely be overstated.

Most conventional approaches to determining the efficient path for coping with climate change, including standard Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs), need to presuppose the technologies, tastes, preferences and behaviours that will dominate in the decades and centuries ahead to give the model structure (Zenghelis 2018a , b ). But these imposed structural assumptions are precisely the things we want to know when predicting the costs of transitioning to low-carbon networks, processes and behaviours. Marginal static analysis techniques, which assume the wider world is unchanged by the intervention, are inappropriate for non-marginal, structural changes of global proportions.

Consider, for instance, the neoclassical DICE and RICE models 8 of Nordhaus. These are among the models most widely used to quantify the costs and benefits of climate policy. In this framework, capital and labour are used to produce a single consumption good. The total productivity of these factors depends upon a single technology parameter, which is imposed and grows exogenously over time. Emission intensity of production also grows exogenously. This leaves little of real interest that the model can tell us.

That said, simplified models like DICE can be useful for transparent sensitivity analysis of key parameters. Grubb and Wieners ( 2020 ), for example, challenge the assumption of temporal independence whereby abatement costs in one period are assumed unaffected by prior abatement. They use DICE to illustrate how a ‘slow carbon price ramp’ approach is inefficient in the case where carbon abatement costs are shaped by innovation. They use the model to illustrate how once a technology becomes sufficiently competitive, it starts to change the entire environment in which it operates. In such cases, the optimal strategy involves much higher initial investment in abatement. For the same reasons, rather than working along an abatement cost schedule picking off the cheapest options first, it might make better sense to start with some of the most expensive technological options to bring their costs down faster (Vogt-Schilb et al. 2018 ).

More complex Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) models, commonly used in IAMs, are no better equipped to handle multiple equilibria and the transition from one equilibrium to another (Mitra-Kahn 2008 ). Dynamic CGE models rely on ‘backward-looking’ adaptive expectation formation or ‘forward-looking’ rational expectation formation to generate a smooth, efficient, balanced equilibrium pathway. Both fail to account for the importance of expectations in driving equilibrium shifts.

Structural macroeconomic models lack the restrictive ‘micro-foundations’ and optimisation assumptions of CGE models, but they are reliant on estimated historical time series to inform behavioural parameters. This also renders them inadequate in making ex ante predictions of future structural change which, by definition, will look very different from the past.

Grubb ( 2018 ) points out that if technology substitution in a structural transformation is intrinsically dynamic and irreversible, with technologies “striving” for dominance, new technological systems can rapidly scale-up and displace older ones in a way that cannot be determined from examining past data in that sector (Fig.  5 ). In such cases, technological penetration is best described in the form of a logistical substitution or S-curve:

Systemic network transitions

Source: Grubb 2018

Models applying ‘historical futures’ analysis by way of incremental improvements in energy and carbon efficiency, or which focus exclusively on what policies have worked in the past, are often doomed to under-predict the scope and pace of change simply because when it comes to structural transitions, the past is no guide to the future.

Incorporating features of path-dependent phenomena—switching costs, inertia, knowledge spillovers, network effects, feedbacks, and complementarities—into economic models leads to a multiplicity of ‘equilibria’, each dependent on a different development path (Aghion et al. 2014).

This makes it very hard to predict costs and benefits over the next few decades, and explains why conventional economic models, even though they often make unrealistic assumptions about optimal policies (such as the application of a uniform global carbon price) which ought to understate the costs of decarbonisation, in general systematically overstate the costs of decarbonisation. It also means that the answer to the net cost of decarbonisation question is endogenous. Innovation in technologies, behaviours and institutions is shaped by action which will determine costs and benefits. Traditional economic models have their place, but their limitations need to be understood.

What does this mean for ‘green growth’?

Spurious model projections have spawned often diametrically opposed and mostly flawed assessments of our ability to live sustainably. One set of authors uses the high-cost projections to question whether ambitious mitigation offers value for money. Integrated assessment models like RICE, DICE and FUND conclude global carbon prices should start low and follow a ‘slow policy ramp’. In his Nobel Prize speech, William Nordhaus, the architect of RICE/DICE, described global temperatures of 3 or 4 degrees above preindustrial levels—levels climate scientists view as potentially catastrophic—as ‘optimal’ given the high costs of adjustment in his models. This is a view most recently endorsed by Lomborg ( 2020 ).

A second camp draws the reverse conclusion. They argue that if absolute decoupling between consumption and emissions is prohibitively expensive, then the only feasible approach to decarbonisation and living within planetary limits is reduced consumption and output—often termed ‘degrowth’ (Jackson 2016 ; Hickel and Kallis 2019 ).

Prosperity and wellbeing is about more than just GDP growth. But it is important not to mistake output growth with growth in material inputs such as fuels, minerals, ecosystem services and capital equipment. This ignores the dynamic scale economies associated with innovation. Unlike material resources, knowledge is weightless and when used is hard to deplete ( Quah 1999 ). Indeed, knowledge builds on knowledge: one of the sources of endogenous growth is that constant or increasing returns to ideas can overcome diminishing returns to physical capital (Weitzman 1996 ; Hepburn and Bowen 2013 ).

Innovation can reduce material throughput for each unit of GDP value created and will do so more as electricity generation is decarbonised. This is reflected in the increasing importance in national income of intangible, knowledge-products—computer software, new media, electronic databases and libraries, and online services. Endogenous growth theory developed by Romer ( 1990 ) highlighted how increasing returns to ideas overcome the diminishing returns to factors like labour and capital generating resources for further investment.

Degrowth is not the place to start when there are so many untapped opportunities associated with sustainability, especially as history suggests that declining economies are neither efficient in their use of resources nor clean. In any case, economic contraction would be among the most expensive solutions, significantly undermining welfare (Zenghelis 2019 ).

From a practical perspective, degrowth is likely to prove a hard sell, particularly in parts of the rapidly developing, populous world where growth is (rightly) seen as a primary means to eradicate poverty. In any case arguments for ‘degrowth’ overlook the extent to which the loss of natural capital is already constraining economic growth, in line with the perception that natural capital, rather than manufactured capital, is now the scarce production factor (UNEP 2011 ).

The approaches adopted by both the degrowth and wait-for-technology camps serve to delay action, using models which overstate the costs of decarbonisation and discourage businesses and policymakers from investing in new technologies and infrastructure. The problem is worse than one of spurious precision and bad forecasts. Those who use static models not only get the future wrong, they make the future wrong by generating what game theorists call an inferior Nash equilibrium. 9 To the extent that such models are believed, they become self-fulfilling, reflecting once again the key role of expectations.

Paul Romer, a key architect of the endogenous growth framework, focused on the dynamics of growth embodied in innovation, network effects and complementary feedbacks. He emphasised path-dependency and the power of decisions today to profoundly shape and reshape the future. Romer states:

“What the theory of endogenous technological progress supports is conditional optimism, not complacent optimism. Instead of suggesting that we can relax because policy choices don’t matter, it suggests to the contrary that policy choices are even more important than traditional theory suggests.”

Models that fail to understand this will consistently get (and make) the future wrong. Our ability to cost-effectively transition to a sustainable economy will be a function of the decisions we take today.

Ways forward

All this suggests that the economic toolkit can be put to better use helping policymakers understand and steer path-dependent processes. Economics will need to draw from a range of disciplines, integrating perspectives from the social, physical, and natural sciences as well as the humanities. This needs to include history, spatial geography, planning and social psychology, game theory, anthropology, epidemiology, computer and network science and sociology to derive a richer and more valuable understanding with which to guide decision-makers (Haldane and Turrell 2018 ).

One approach suggests that, in addition to theoretical and network-based analysis, dynamic models of the economy should be coupled with models of opinion dynamics and behaviour by use of agent-based models. These explicitly reflect interactions between heterogeneous, networked individuals in place of conventional ‘representative agents’ (Farmer and Foley 2009 ). As a result, they offer insights into the probability and processes through which economies shift from one equilibrium to another (Mealy and Hepburn 2019).

A number of authors now recognise that better understanding the processes and innovations which generate the cascades of tipping described above is more valuable to policymakers than speculative projections of costs. By taking advantage of the inherent domino effect of rapid, self-amplified and contagious change, policymakers can leverage highly sensitive “tipping interventions” that deliver outsized impact (Schellnhuber et al. 2016 ; Farmer et al. 2019 ) which could hasten global decarbonisation (Tàbara et al. 2018 ) 10 . Rather than focus on predictions based on ‘historical futures’, information on innovation processes can be gleaned by looking at historical transitions, such as the change from kerosene use to electricity, horse and cart to combustion engines and photographic film and records to digital photos and music (Zenghelis et al. 2018 ).

The trigger could be, for example, a specific climate or energy policy or a breakthrough technology (such as cheap and effective energy storage). The point is that policies, institutions, and technologies reinforce each other in a positive feedback loop precipitating take-off and diffusion of sustainable forms of production. Targeted tipping interventions could simultaneously precipitate mutual reinforcement and overcome barriers to decarbonisation (Rickards et al. 2014 ). Our analysis of strategic complementarities in section “ Feedbacks in preferences, behaviour and expectations ” showed how agents base their decisions on how they anticipate others will act (van der Meijden and Smulders 2017). This collectively underscores the importance of leadership and clear credible policies to guide investors (Aral 2011 ) and kickstart the green innovation machine through public investment, guarantees and risk sharing.

The low-carbon transition is likely to have influence beyond rich-world economies, with many developing countries encountering significant structural shifts of their own. Rapid change in technologies, policy frameworks and markets are rendering traditional industrial development routes less viable. Development agencies and multilateral financiers are seeking to diversify assets and lock into profoundly different sustainable pathways (Peszko et al. 2020 ). Multilateral funding supported by enhanced technological diffusion can promote both development and decarbonisation and allow countries to leverage global finance to deploy green technologies and generate capacity in new technologies (Hidalgo et al. 2007 ; ECA 2016 ).

None of this is to say that a managed low-carbon transition is inevitable. Political economy barriers and effective lobbying by incumbents could continue to slow progress in hard-to-transition sectors such as industry (in particular metals, ceramics, chemicals cement and plastics), aviation, shipping and haulage (Energy Transition Commission 2018 ). This could prevent a shift to net zero in time to avoid critical climate risks. But, in line with Paul Romer’s conditional optimism, the fact that we may not profitably do what is necessary in time does not mean we cannot do so. A prerequisite for doing so would be leadership and a common understanding of the costs and opportunities, a role facilitated by the appropriate application of the economists’ toolkit.

On a final note, shortly after the publication of the GEO-6 report, and after this paper was first drafted, the world was transformed by the Covid-19 pandemic. A number of studies have highlighted the fact that the move from pandemic lockdown and rescue to post-pandemic recovery offers an opportunity to ‘build back better’ so as to secure resilient, inclusive and sustainable growth (Hepburn et al. 2020 ). There is a growing realisation that the growth model that followed the great financial crash marked a wasted opportunity (Stern et al. 2020 ).

The post-Covid recovery marks an opportunity to invest surplus desired saving into a broad range of productive complementary assets, including physical, human, knowledge, social and natural capital, to secure future prosperity (Agarwala et al. 2020 ). Because these investments in society’s comprehensive wealth utilise a surplus of desired global savings, which has pushed global real risk-free interest rates below zero, the benefits of public investment based on mounting public debt are likely to exceed the costs, for most countries able to borrow in their own currency (Zenghelis et al. 2020 ). As part of a coordinated and strategic policy framework, they also have the potential to leverage in far larger sums of private investment (Green Finance Taskforce 2018 ). Low- and middle-income countries have less scope to rely on public borrowing and are likely to need augmented support from high-income countries to access finance and technologies necessary to secure sustainable growth, once the pandemic has been brought fully under control.

Conclusions

Given limited time and resources available to address mounting concerns, traditional economic approaches to assessing our response to environmental challenges are not only flawed, they are dangerous. Physical science shows the threat posed by complex adaptive systems surpassing critical thresholds and irreversible tipping points.

A key conclusion of this analysis is that starting early by credibly steering expectations, inducing innovation and directing investment is in all cases better than delay. Actively managing a transition to a low-carbon, sustainable economy means strong policy signals which allow governments and businesses to avoid investing in high-carbon, resource-intensive infrastructure, technologies and assets that are liable to become stranded, devalued or redundant before the end of their working lives. For all these reasons, we conclude that ‘grow now, clean up later’ is the second highest cost option (assuming ‘clean up’ is possible). Only the existential costs of never cleaning up are higher.

This paper has shown why delay is triply bad:

• Climate damages mount as the stock of greenhouse gases go up, and challenges from depleted and degraded resources mount, especially when such degradation, such as in respect of land and marine ecosystems, is irreversible.
• Climate and resource depletion damages mount much more quickly as productivity growth is eroded through endogenous effects of devalued and destroyed capital (Dietz and Stern 2015 )
• Lock-in of resource- and carbon-intensive infrastructure, behaviour and institutions and reduced innovation in substitutes increases the cost of attaining sustainable pathways.

Early action can induce creativity and innovation and generate tipping points as feedbacks and dynamics become reinforcing. This is why the correct answer to the question ‘what will it cost to decarbonise in the long run?’ is ‘it is endogenous’. It depends on the choices and actions we take today and in the future. A common understanding that a managed low-carbon transition is both imperative and affordable is the most effective way to induce a rapid transition at least cost.

But understanding the endogeneity of the system and the role of expectations in determining the evolution of costs and competitive advantage suggests the whole notion (and associated industry) of forecasting the cost of decarbonisation is somewhat misplaced. The economic toolkit needs to be put to more creative use to help policymakers understand and steer path-dependent processes.

This paper concludes that analytical insights can potentially allow policymakers to leverage highly sensitive “tipping interventions”, by taking advantage of the inherent domino effect of self-amplified and contagious dynamics. We are already seeing increasing returns to scale in discovery and production, and we are seeing very powerful complementarities and positive feedbacks in systems. Transformative change is gripping key global energy and transport sectors after decades of inertia: new networks, behaviours and institutions are replacing old. Policymakers and businesses are increasingly adopting risk management and hedging strategies that limit investment in conventional technologies and behaviours that may be rendered stranded or devalued. This is not the context of standard growth models, yet policy is needed to support and accelerate this momentum.

Recent evidence suggests the short-term GDP impacts of well-designed environmental action could be positive, crowding-in rather than ‘crowding out’ the drivers of future growth. Moreover, much environmental harm is irreversible, most obviously biodiversity loss and tipping points associated with a changing climate. This paper provides evidence that not only makes the environmental case for action, in terms of its benefits for human health and welfare, it also shows how such action can generate economic returns in terms of productivity, jobs and income and reduce the costs of meeting any emissions and resource use targets. A cost-effective low-carbon, resource-efficient transition can generate a cleaner, quieter, more secure, innovative, and productive economy for all countries at all stages of development.

But our optimism is conditional. It requires credible and ambitious action in the near term to avoid catastrophic and irreversible environmental risk by overcoming continued inertia in unsustainable activities, and time is not on our side. There is no room for fatalism and complacency. Using the wrong economic tools to assess the costs of systemic technological and behavioural transformation to address climate change delays action. Understanding the dynamic process of innovation, on the other hand, means putting investment, innovation and technical change at centre stage.

1 https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/02/health/plane-crash-deaths-intl/index.html .

2 https://about.bnef.com/new-energy-outlook/ .

3 https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/scenarios-solar-singularity-michael-liebreich/ .

4 https://about.bnef.com/new-energy-outlook/ .

5 See: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-05/clean-energy-investment-is-set-to-hit-2-6-trillion-this-decade .

6 https://www.strategyr.com/MarketResearch/market-report-infographic-chip-on-board-light-emitting-diodes-cob-leds-forecasts-global-industry-analysts-inc.asp .

‘5.5 Social CBA and Social CEA are “marginal analysis” techniques. They are generally most appropriate where the broader environment (e.g. the price of goods and services in the economy) can be assumed to be unchanged by the intervention. These techniques work less well where there are potential non-marginal effects or changes in underlying relationships. This is due to the difficulties inherent in pricing such changes. It is possible to adapt Social CBA in these cases, for example when appraising the cumulative impact of interventions on Natural Capital. Significant non-marginal issues which cannot be reflected in Social CBA need to be appraised and considered at the long-list stage.’ – The Green Book.

8 https://sites.google.com/site/williamdnordhaus/dice-rice

9 https://www.bennettinstitute.cam.ac.uk/blog/mind-over-matter-how-expectations-generate-wealth/ .

10 See Oxford Martin School, “Programmes: Post-carbon Transition,” www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/research/programmes/post-carbon .

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• Acemoglu D, Aghion P, Bursztyn L, Hémous D. The environment and directed technical change. Am Econ Rev. 2012; 102 :131–166. doi: 10.1257/aer.102.1.131. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Agarwala M, Cinamon Nair Y, Cordonier Segger MC, Coyle D, Felici M, Goodair B, Leam R, Lu S, Manley A, Wdowin J, Zenghelis D (2020) Building Forward: Investing in a Resilient Recovery. Wealth Economy Report to letterone. Bennett Institute for Public Policy, University of Cambridge
• Aghion P, Dechezleprêtre A, Hemous D, Martin R, Van Reenen J (2012) Carbon taxes, path dependency and directed technical change: evidence from the auto industry. NBER Working Paper No. 18596, December
• Aghion P, Hepburn C, Teytelboym A, Zenghelis D (2019) Path dependence, innovation and the economics of climate change. In Handbook on Green Growth 2019 Jul 26. Edward Elgar Publishing. (An early dart is freely available as a contributing paper to New Climate Economy)
• Alstone P, Gershenson D, Kammen DM. Decentralized energy systems for clean electricity access. Nat Clim Change. 2015; 5 (4):305. doi: 10.1038/nclimate2512. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aral S. Commentary—identifying social influence: a comment on opinion leadership and social contagion in new product diffusion. Market Sci. 2011; 30 (2):217–223. doi: 10.1287/mksc.1100.0596. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Arrow KJ. The economic implications of learning by doing. Rev Econ Stud. 1962; 29 (3):155–173. doi: 10.2307/2295952. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bosetti V, Carraro C, Galeotti M, Massetti E, Tavoni M (2006) WITCH a world induced technical change hybrid model. Energy J 13–37
• Boyd R, Green F, Stern N (2015) The road to paris and beyond. Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy and Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment
• Bradshaw EA. Blockadia rising: rowdy greens, direct action and the keystone XL pipeline. CritCriminol. 2015; 23 :433–448. doi: 10.1007/s10612-015-9289-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Braun FG, Schmidt-Ehmcke J, Zloczysti P (2010) Innovative activity in wind and solar technology: empirical evidence on knowledge Spillovers. Using Patent Data, CEPR Discussion Paper No. 7865
• Clark G, Feiner A, Viehs M (2015) From the stockholder to the stakeholder: how sustainability can drive financial outperformance. (Oxford University and Arabesque Partners)
• Coady D, Parry I, Sears L, Shang B (2015) How largeare global energy subsidies? International Monetary Fund (IMF). IMF Working Paper
• Cohen F, Hepburn C, Teytelboym A (2017) Can we stop depleting natural capital? A literature review on substituting it with other forms of capital. INET Oxford Working Paper No. 2017‐13. Oxford: Institute for New Economic Thinking. https://www.inet.ox.ac.uk/files/Substitution_paper_18112017.pdf
• Collier P. African urbanization: an analytic policy guide. Oxford Rev Econ Policy. 2017; 33 (3):405–437. doi: 10.1093/oxrep/grx031. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Combes B, Zenghelis D (2014) Tough love. MacroPlus Comment, Llewellyn Consulting. Available at: http://media.wix.com/ugd/264e4c_b24f1969bc844dc1840b7152e5ab0f04.pdf
• Dechezlepretre A, Martin R, Mohnen M (2014) Knowledge spillovers from clean and dirty technologies. Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics and Political Science
• Dietz S, Stern N. Endogenous growth, convexity of damages and climate risk: how Nordhaus’ framework supports deep cuts in carbon emissions. Centre Clim Change. 2015; 125 (583):574–620. doi: 10.1111/ecoj.12188. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Easterly W, Levine R. Tropics, germs and crops: How endowments influence economic development. J Monetary Econ. 2003; 50 :3–39. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3932(02)00200-3. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• ECA . Greening Africa's industrialisation. Addis Ababa: Economic Commission for Africa; 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Farmer JD, Foley D. The economy needs agent-based modelling. Nature. 2009; 460 (7256):685. doi: 10.1038/460685a. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Farmer JD, Lafond F. How predictable is technological progress? Res Policy. 2016; 45 (3):647–665. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2015.11.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Farmer JD, Hepburn C, Ives MC, Hale T, Wetzer T, Mealy P, Rafaty R, Srivastav S, Way R. Sensitive intervention points in the post-carbon transition. Science. 2019; 364 (6436):132–134. doi: 10.1126/science.aaw7287. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Financial Times (2018) Insurers Go Cold on Coal Industry. https://www.ft.com/content/7ec63f34-f20c-11e7-ac08-07c3086a2625 .
• Fischer C, Newell RG. Environmental and technology policies for climate mitigation. J Environ Econ Manag. 2008; 55 (2):142–162. doi: 10.1016/j.jeem.2007.11.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Friede G, Busch T, Bassen A. ESG and financial performance: aggregated evidence from more than 2000 empirical studies. J Sustain Finance Invest. 2015; 5 (4):210–233. doi: 10.1080/20430795.2015.1118917. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gifford R. The dragons of inaction: psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. Am Psychol. 2011; 66 (4):290–302. doi: 10.1037/a0023566. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Global Commission on the Economy and Climate (2014) Better growth, better climate. New Climate Economy, 2014, www.newclimateeconomy.report/2014
• Green F. Anti-fossil fuel norms. Climatic Change. 2018; 150 (1):103–116. doi: 10.1007/s10584-017-2134-6. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Green Finance Taskforce (2018) Accelerating green finance. a report to the Government by the Green Finance Taskforce. Available at: https://www.greenfinanceinstitute.co.uk/accelerating-green-finance-green-finance-taskforce-report/
• Grubb M (2018) Conditional Optimism: Economic Perspectives on Deep Decarbonization, Institute for New Economic Thinking: https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/growth-with-decarbonization-is-not-an-oxymoron .
• Grubb M, Wieners C (2020) Modelling Myths: on the need for dynamic realism in DICE and other equilibrium models of global climate mitigation. INET Working Paper No. 112 January,  https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/modeling-myths-of-climate-change
• Haldane AG, Turrell AE. An interdisciplinary model for macroeconomics. Oxford Rev Econ Policy. 2018; 34 (1–2):219–251. doi: 10.1093/oxrep/grx051. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hale T (2018) Catalytic cooperation. Blavatnik School of Government, Univ. of Oxford; www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2018-09/BSG-WP-2018-026.pdf
• Hallegatte S, Heal G, Fay M, Treguer D (2012) From growth to green growth—a framework. http://www.nber.org/papers/w17841 .
• Hausmann R, Hidalgo CA, Bustos S, Coscia M, Simoes A, Yildirim MA. The Atlas of Economic Complexity: mapping paths to prosperity. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hepburn C, Bowen A. Prosperity with growth: Economic growth, climate change and environmental limits. In: Fouquet R, editor. Handbook on energy and climate change. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2013. pp. 617–638. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hepburn C, Pfeiffer A, Teytelboym A (2018) “Green Growth” The New Oxford Handbook of Economic Geography. Edited by Gordon LC, Maryann PF, Meric SGr, Dariusz W. January
• Hepburn C, O’Callaghan B, Stern N, Stiglitz J, Zenghelis D (2020)‘Will COVID-19 fiscal recovery packages accelerate or retard progress on climate change?. Smith School Working Paper 20–02 Forthcoming in the Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 36(S1)
• Hickel J, Kallis G. Is green growth possible? New Political Econ. 2019 doi: 10.1080/13563467.2019.1598964. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hidalgo CA, Klinger B, Barabasi AL, Hausmann R. The product space conditions the development of nations. Science. 2007; 317 (5837):482–487. doi: 10.1126/science.1144581. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organisation) (2018) Annual Report 2018: the World of Air Transport in 2018, ICAO, https://www.icao.int/annual-report-2018/Pages/the-world-of-air-transport-in-2018.aspx#:~:text=According%20to%20ICAO's%20preliminary%20compilation,a%203.5%20per%20cent%20increase
• IPBES (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services) (2019) Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services, IPBES, https://www.ipbes.net/news/ipbes-global-assessment-summary-policymakers-pdf
• IPCC (2018) Global Warming of 1.5°C, IPCC, https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-3/
• IRP (International Resource Panel) (2019a) Global resources outlook 2019: natural resources for the future we want. (Oberle B, Bringezu S, Hatfeld-Dodds S, Hellweg S, Schandl H, Clement J, Cabernard L, Che N, Chen D, Droz-Georget H, Ekins P, FischerKowalski M, Flörke M, Frank S, Froemelt A, Geschke A, Haupt M, Havlik P, Hüfner R, Lenzen M, Lieber M, Liu B, Lu Y, Lutter S, Mehr J, Miatto A, Newth D, Oberschelp C, Obersteiner M, Pfster S, Piccoli E, Schaldach R, Schüngel J, Sonderegger T, Sudheshwar A, Tanikawa H, van der Voet E, Walker C, West J, Wang Z, Zhu B) A Report of the International Resource Panel, United Nations Environment Programme. Nairobi, Kenya, https://www.resourcepanel.org/reports/global-resources-outlook
• IRP (International Resource Panel) (2019b) Global resources outlook 2019: natural resources for the future we want. Summary for Policy Makers, International Resource Panel, United Nations Environment Programme. Nairobi, Kenya, https://www.resourcepanel.org/reports/global-resources-outlook
• Jackson T. Prosperity without growth: foundations for the economy of tomorrow. New York: Routledge; 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Krugman P. ‘History versus expectations. Quart J Econ. 1991; 106 (2):651–667. doi: 10.2307/2937950. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Landrigan P, Fuller R, Acosta N, Adeyi O, Arnold R, Basu N, Baldé A, Bertollini R, Bose-O’Reilly S, Boufford J, Breysse P, Chiles T, Mahidol C, Coll-Seck A, Cropper M, Fobil J, Fuster V, Greenstone M, Haines A, Hanrahan D, Hunter D, Khare M, Krupnick A, Lanphear B, Lohani B, Martin K,Mathiasen K, McTeer M, Murray C, Ndahimananjara J, Perera F, Potočnik J, Preker A, Ramesh J, Rockström J, Salinas C, Samson L, Sandilya K, Sly P, Smith K, Steiner A, Stewart R, Suk W, van Schayck O, Yadama G, Yumkella K, Zhong M (2018) The Lancet Commission on Pollution and Health 391:462–512, 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32345-0
• Levin T, Thomas VM. Can developing countries leapfrog the centralized electrification paradigm? Energy Sustain Dev. 2016; 31 :97–107. doi: 10.1016/j.esd.2015.12.005. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lockwood M. The political sustainability of climate policy: the case of the UK Climate Change Act. Global Environ Change. 2013; 23 (5):1339–1348. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lomborg B. Welfare in the 21st century: Increasing development, reducing inequality, the impact of climate change, and the cost of climate policies. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119981. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mani M, editor. Greening India’s growth: costs, valuations and trade-offs. Abingdon: Routledge; 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Matsuyama K. Increasing returns, industrialization, and indeterminacy of equilibrium. Quart J Econ. 1991; 106 (2):617–650. doi: 10.2307/2937949. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McGlade C, Ekins P. The geographical distribution of fossil fuels unused when limiting global warming to 2 °C. Nature. 2015; 517 (7533):187–190. doi: 10.1038/nature14016. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mealy P, Hepburn CJ. Transformational change: parallels for addressing climate and development goals INET. Oxford. 2017 doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34840.44801. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mealy P, Teytelboym A (2017) Economic complexity and the green economy. Available at SSRN 3111644
• Mitra-Kahn BH (2008) Debunking the myths of computable general equilibrium models. Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis and Department of Economics, New School for Social Research, Working Paper 01–2008 (March), https://www.economicpolicyresearch.org/images/docs/research/economic_growth/SCEPA%20Working%20Paper%202008-1_Kahn.pdf
• O’Connor D (1996) Grow now/clean later, or the pursuit of sustainable development? Working Paper 111, March, OECD Development Centre, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/development/grow-now-clean-later-or-the-pursuit-of-sustainable-development_043786612388
• Ostrom E. Collective action and the evolution of social norms. J Econ Perspect. 2000; 14 :137–158. doi: 10.1257/jep.14.3.137. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Otto IM, Donges JF (2019) Social tipping dynamics for stabilizing Earth's climate by 2050” in review. Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• Peszko G, van der Mensbrugghe D, Golub A, Ward J, Zenghelis D, Marijs C, Schopp A, Rogers JA, Midgley A (2020) Diversification and cooperation in a decarbonizing world: climate strategies for fossil fuel-dependent countries. July. World Bank Group, Washington DC. 9
• Pfeiffer A, Millar R, Hepburn C, Beinhocker E (2016) The ‘2°C capital stock’ for electricity generation: Committed cumulative carbon emissions from the electricity generation sector and the transition to a green economy. Applied Energy, Available online 24 March, ISSN 0306-2619, 10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.02.093, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261916302495
• Pindyck RS. climate change policy: What do the models tell us? J Econ Literature. 2013; 51 (3):860–872. doi: 10.1257/jel.51.3.860. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Popp D. ENTICE: endogenous technological change in the DICE model of global warming. J Environ Econ Manag. 2004; 48 (1):742–768. doi: 10.1016/j.jeem.2003.09.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Porter ME. Location, competition, and economic development: local clusters in a global economy. Econ Dev Quart. 2000; 14 (1):15–34. doi: 10.1177/089124240001400105. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Posner RA. Social norms and the law: an economic approach. Am Econ Rev. 1997; 87 (2):365–369. [ Google Scholar ]
• Quah D (1999) The weightless economy in economic development. Centre for Economic Performance Discussion Paper No. 417, London School of Economics and Political Science, March
• The Energy Transitions Commission (2018) Reaching net zero emissions: mission possible. November
• Rickards L, Wiseman J, Kashima Y. Barriers to effective climate change mitigation: the case of senior government and business decision makers. Wiley Interdisciplinary Rev. 2014; 5 (6):753–773. doi: 10.1002/wcc.305. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rogers EM (2010) Diffusion of Innovations, 4th edn. Simon and Schuster
• Romer P. Endogenous technological change. J Political Econ. 1990; 98 (5):S71–S102. doi: 10.1086/261725. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schellnhuber HJ. Tipping elements in the earth system. ProcNatlAcadSci. 2009; 106 (49):20561–20563. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0911106106. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schellnhuber HJ, Rahmstorf R, Winkelmann R. Why the right climate target was agreed in Paris. Nat Clim Change. 2016 doi: 10.1038/nclimate3013. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shin E, Hufschmidt M, Lee Y, Nickum J, Umetsu C, Gregory R (1997) Valuating the economic impacts of urban environmental problems: Asian cities. Urban Management Programme Working Paper 13, June, World Bank, Washington DC, http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/944741468748753106/pdf/30073.pdf
• Solow Perspectives on growth theory. J Econ Perspect. 1994; 8 (1):45–54. doi: 10.1257/jep.8.1.45. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Steffen W, Rockström J, Richardson K, Lenton T, Folke C, Liverman D, Summerhayes C, Barnosky A, Cornell S, Crucifix M, Donges J, Fetzer I, Lade S, Scheffer M, Winkelmann R, Schellnhuber H-J. Trajectories of the earth system in the anthropocene. ProcNatlAcadSci. 2018; 115 (33):8252–8259. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1810141115. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stern N, Zenghelis D (2016) The importance of looking forward to manage risks: submission to the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures. Policy paper by the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London School of Economics. June. http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Zenghelis-and-Stern-policy-paper-June-2016.pdf
• Stern N, Unsworth S, Valero A, Zenghelis D, Rydge J, Robins N (2020) An LSE action plan for a strong and sustainable recovery. Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics and Political Science. Covid 19 Blog (08 Jul 2020)
• Tàbara JD, Frantzeskaki N, Hölscher K, Pedde S, Kok K, Lamperti F, Christensen JH, Jäger J, Berry P. Positive tipping points in a rapidly warming world. CurrOpin Environ Sustain. 2018; 2018 (31):120–129. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2018.01.012. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thomas K, Haque OS, Pinker S, DeScioli P. The psychology of coordination and common knowledge. J PersSocPsychol. 2014; 107 :657–676. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Timur K, Sunstein C. Availability Cascades and Risk Regulation. Stanford Law Rev. 1999; 51 (4):683. doi: 10.2307/1229439. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Trancik JE. Renewable energy: back the renewables boom. Nature. 2014; 507 (7492):300–302. doi: 10.1038/507300a. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• UNEP (UN Environment Programme) (2011) Towards a green economy: pathways to sustainable development and poverty eradication. Green Economy Report, UNEP, Nairobi, https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&type=400&nr=126&menu=35
• UNEP (UN Environment Programme) (2019) Global environment outlook: healthy planet, healthy people, sixth edition (GEO-6), UNEP, Nairobi and Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, https://www.unenvironment.org/resources/global-environment-outlook-6
• van Asselt H, Kulovesi K. Seizing the opportunity: tackling fossil fuel subsidies under the UNFCCC. Int Environ Agreements. 2017; 17 (3):357–370. doi: 10.1007/s10784-017-9357-x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van der Meijden GC, Smulders S (2017) Carbon lock-in: the role of expectations. Int Econ Rev 58(4)
• Vogt-Schilb A, Meunier G, Hallegatte S. When starting with the most expensive option makes sense: optimal timing, cost and sectoral allocation of abatement investment. J Environ Econ Manag. 2018; 88 (C):210–233. doi: 10.1016/j.jeem.2017.12.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wagner G, Weitzman M. Climate shock: the economic consequence of a hotter planet. New Jersey: Princeton University Press; 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Watts N, Amann M, Ayeb-Karlsson S, Belesova K, Bouley T, Boykoff M, Byass P, Cai W, Campbell-Lendrum D, Chambers J, Cox PM, Daly M, Dassandi N, Davies M, Depledge M, Depoux A, Dominguez-Salas P, Drummond P, Ekins P, Flahault A, Frumkin H, Georgeson L, Ghanei M, Grace D, Graham H, Grojsman R, Haines A, Hamilton I, Hartinger S, Johnson A, Kelman I, Kiesewetter G, Kniveton D, Liang L, Lott M, Lowe R, Mace G, OdhiamboSewe M, Maslin M, Mikhaylov S, Milner J, Latifi AM, Moradi-Lakeh M, Morrissey K, Murray K, Neville T, Nilsson M, Oreszczyn T, Owfi F, Pencheon D, Pye S, Rabbaniha M, Robinson E, Rocklöv J, Schütte S, Shumake-Geullemot J, Steinbach R, Tabatabaei M, Wheeler N, Wilkinson P, Gong P, Montgomery H, Costello A. The Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: from 25 years of inaction to a global transformation for public health. Lancet. 2017; 391 :581–630. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32464-9. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Weitzman M. Hybridizing growth theory. Am Econ Rev. 1996; 86 (2):207–212. [ Google Scholar ]
• Weitzman M (2011) Fat-tailed uncertainty in the economics of catastrophic climate change. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Vol. 5, Issue 2, Summer 2011, pp 275–292, 10.1093/reep/rer006, https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/weitzman/files/fattaileduncertaintyeconomics.pdf
• World Bank (1994) Thailand: mitigating pollution and congestion impacts in a high-growth economy. Country Economic Report, Report No. 11770-TH, February, World Bank, Washington DC, http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/756231468761386707/Thailand-Country-economic-report-mitigating-pollution-and-congestion-impacts-in-a-high-growth-economy
• Young HP. The evolution of social norms. Annual Rev Econ. 2015; 7 :359–387. doi: 10.1146/annurev-economics-080614-115322. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zenghelis D. Decarbonisation: innovation and the economics of climate change. Polit Quart. 2016; 86 (S1):172–190. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zenghelis D (2018) The role of modelling and scenario development in long-term strategies. World Resource Institute, Expert Perspectives. https://www.wri.org/climate/expert-perspective/role-modelling-and-scenario-development-long-term-strategies
• Zenghelis D (2019) ‘Can we be green and grow?’ Lombard Odier. November. Available at: https://www.lombardodier.com/contents/corporate-news/responsible-capital/2019/november/can-we-be-green-and-grow.html
• Zenghelis D, Fouquet R, Hippe R. Stranded assets: then and now. In: Caldecott B, editor. Stranded assets and the environment: risk, resilience, and opportunity. London: Routledge; 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zenghelis D, Manley A, Wdowin J (2020) Public debt, public wealth and economic dynamics, Bennett Institute, University of Cambridge Available at: https://www.bennettinstitute.cam.ac.uk/publications/public-debt-public-wealth-and-economic-dynamics/

Sustainable Development Essay

500+ words essay on sustainable development.

Sustainable development is a central concept. It is a way of understanding the world and a method for solving global problems. The world population continues to rise rapidly. This increasing population needs basic essential things for their survival such as food, safe water, health care and shelter. This is where the concept of sustainable development comes into play. Sustainable development means meeting the needs of people without compromising the ability of future generations. In this essay on sustainable development, students will understand what sustainable development means and how we can practise sustainable development. Students can also access the list of CBSE essay topics to practise more essays.

What Does Sustainable Development Means?

The term “Sustainable Development” is defined as the development that meets the needs of the present generation without excessive use or abuse of natural resources so that they can be preserved for the next generation. There are three aims of sustainable development; first, the “Economic” which will help to attain balanced growth, second, the “Environment”, to preserve the ecosystem, and third, “Society” which will guarantee equal access to resources to all human beings. The key principle of sustainable development is the integration of environmental, social, and economic concerns into all aspects of decision-making.

Need for Sustainable Development?

There are several challenges that need attention in the arena of economic development and environmental depletion. Hence the idea of sustainable development is essential to address these issues. The need for sustainable development arises to curb or prevent environmental degradation. It will check the overexploitation and wastage of natural resources. It will help in finding alternative sources to regenerate renewable energy resources. It ensures a safer human life and a safer future for the next generation.

The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the need to keep sustainable development at the very core of any development strategy. The pandemic has challenged the health infrastructure, adversely impacted livelihoods and exacerbated the inequality in the food and nutritional availability in the country. The immediate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic enabled the country to focus on sustainable development. In these difficult times, several reform measures have been taken by the Government. The State Governments also responded with several measures to support those affected by the pandemic through various initiatives and reliefs to fight against this pandemic.

How to Practise Sustainable Development?

The concept of sustainable development was born to address the growing and changing environmental challenges that our planet is facing. In order to do this, awareness must be spread among the people with the help of many campaigns and social activities. People can adopt a sustainable lifestyle by taking care of a few things such as switching off the lights when not in use; thus, they save electricity. People must use public transport as it will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution. They should save water and not waste food. They build a habit of using eco-friendly products. They should minimise waste generation by adapting to the principle of the 4 R’s which stands for refuse, reduce, reuse and recycle.

The concept of sustainable development must be included in the education system so that students get aware of it and start practising a sustainable lifestyle. With the help of empowered youth and local communities, many educational institutions should be opened to educate people about sustainable development. Thus, adapting to a sustainable lifestyle will help to save our Earth for future generations. Moreover, the Government of India has taken a number of initiatives on both mitigation and adaptation strategies with an emphasis on clean and efficient energy systems; resilient urban infrastructure; water conservation & preservation; safe, smart & sustainable green transportation networks; planned afforestation etc. The Government has also supported various sectors such as agriculture, forestry, coastal and low-lying systems and disaster management.

Students must have found this essay on sustainable development useful for practising their essay writing skills. They can get the study material and the latest updates on CBSE/ICSE/State Board/Competitive Exams, at BYJU’S.

Frequently Asked Questions on Sustainable development Essay

Why is sustainable development a hot topic for discussion.

Environment change and constant usage of renewable energy have become a concern for all of us around the globe. Sustainable development must be inculcated in young adults so that they make the Earth a better place.

What will happen if we do not practise sustainable development?

Landfills with waste products will increase and thereby there will be no space and land for humans and other species/organisms to thrive on.

What are the advantages of sustainable development?

Sustainable development helps secure a proper lifestyle for future generations. It reduces various kinds of pollution on Earth and ensures economic growth and development.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your Mobile number and Email id will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Request OTP on Voice Call

Post My Comment

• Share Share

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs

Register with byju's & watch live videos.

Counselling

• Seed Grants
• Martin Fellows
• Plastics Program
• Mining Program
• NCS Program
• Cities & Climate
• Other Degrees
• Instructional Toolkit
• Career Fair
• Here & Real
• Rapid Response
• Climate Portal
• Uncertain Future
• Opportunities
• Donate to ESI
• News + Media
• Publications
• Director’s Note

ESI Stories

Environmental Justice: How Sustainability Is About More Than Just the Planet

A MITASC story contributed by Natalie Northrup

I’ve been watching the U.S. Democratic debates recently, and the topics of focus are healthcare, police brutality, income inequality, and poverty. The focuses for the proposed solutions are generally reactive rather than proactive, and their main forces are direct government programs and economic controls.

The debates have very little focus on climate change, a fact which seems strange in light of the ways in which the crisis affects income inequality, the need for healthcare, and poverty. But this side of the climate crisis, and this side of our interaction with the environment is largely ignored in the proposals for a sustainable future. These issues of environmental injustice are not talking points in the debates. The ways in which manufacturing and industry affect communities demonstrates the unseen effects that come from industrial production and the NIMBY (Not in My Back Yard) attitude of those deciding the outfall of industrialization’s consequences.

The Environmental Protection Agency defines environmental justice as fair treatment and meaningful involvement of people allowing for “the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards, and equal access to the decision-making process to have a healthy environment in which to live, learn, and work” [1] .

This summer, I’m working at Stantec, an engineering consulting company, in their environmental group. We do a lot of remediation projects, and through this project work are exposed to many cases of environmental injustice. Sites we see often are in low income areas, near a body of water that serves as a drinking water source, or where people perform a daily job. These sites often contain elevated levels of contaminants like petroleum, chlorinated compounds, volatiles and more.

Stantec designs and assists with remediation projects to make these sites safer. From Brownfield site cleanups, to transforming old industrial buildings into affordable housing units, to water purification and vapor mitigation system implementation, the work that I’ve had the opportunity to assist with makes it possible to offer equal protection from environmental hazards and access to a healthy place to live and work.

With this work at the core of the environmental business line, Stantec truly works for, and designs for environmental justice.

This side of environmental work is new to me. Most of the publicly emphasized issues with environmental irresponsibility involve natural phenomena (rising water levels, increasingly intense and frequent storms and more extreme temperatures, among many). These events are serious, and seriously bring into question whether our behaviors are sustainable; it seems like most people by now have realized that we are not acting sustainably. But the focus on events that are likely to affect us all ignores the fact that we have been practicing unsustainable behaviors for decades, and communities have been feeling the effects.

At Love Canal, Niagara Falls, NY, the Hooker Chemical Company dumped tons of chemical manufacturing byproduct on a site that was then sold by the company, becoming the site of a school for the surrounding community. Kids and residents of the neighborhood experienced high levels of leukemia and birth defects among other health-related issues.

This environmental justice issue caused significant stress to a community that did not create the condition of danger and was not equipped with the tools to remedy it. The residents at Love Canal were stuck, because no one would buy their houses and move into the chemically contaminated area, the government wouldn’t buy the houses, and the residents couldn’t afford to buy a new house without selling their current house.

Love Canal is not the only site with issues of this sort. The waste effluent from DuPont’s Teflon manufacturing and well contamination from fracking fluid and natural gas extraction techniques are only two of many other circumstances where people with little say in the way manufacturing is run are dangerously affected by the processes.

Checking with the EPA definition, the residents at Love Canal, and other hazardous sites across the globe, were NOT offered “the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards,” and they were NOT offered “equal access to the decision making process to have a healthy environment in which to live, learn and work.” A serious case of environmental injustice.

These issues affect the health of a community, they affect the wealth of a community, and they affect the relationship between the residents of a community and the forces that have control over their fate.

Environmental sustainability is not just about engineering new solutions, building clean energy infrastructure and recycling consumer goods. Environmental sustainability is about creating systems that work for everyone, systems that foster growth and health, and systems that preserve both the natural environment and the communities that characterize this world as the beautiful thing it has the potential to be.

[1] https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice

This public reflection was produced as part of the work of the MIT Action Sustainability Corps. Learn more about MITASC here .

• Environmental Education
• ESI in the News
• Events and Programs
• Journalism Fellowships
• Letters from the Director
• MITASC Stories
• Research Grants

Get the latest on ESI news and events, plus our weekly newsletter:

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Brief Communication
• Published: 29 June 2020

Environmental destruction not avoided with the Sustainable Development Goals

• Yiwen Zeng   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7787-314X 1 ,
• Sean Maxwell 2 ,
• Rebecca K. Runting 3 ,
• Oscar Venter 4 ,
• James E. M. Watson   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4942-1984 2 , 5 &
• L. Roman Carrasco   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2894-1473 1  

Nature Sustainability volume  3 ,  pages 795–798 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

7543 Accesses

105 Citations

384 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Environmental economics
• Environmental impact
• Environmental social sciences
• Sustainability

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were designed to reconcile environmental protection with socioeconomic development. Here, we compare SDG indicators to a suite of external measures, showing that while most countries are progressing well towards environmental SDGs, this has little relationship with actual biodiversity conservation, and instead better represents socioeconomic development. If this continues, the SDGs will likely serve as a smokescreen for further environmental destruction throughout the decade.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles

111,21 € per year

only 9,27 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in Supplementary Figs. 1 and 2 , and raw data can be provided from the corresponding authors upon request.

Code availability

All R scripts used to process the data are available from the corresponding authors upon request.

Millennium Development Goals Report (United Nations, 2015).

Hansen, M. C. et al. High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science 342 , 850–853 (2013).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Maxwell, S. L., Fuller, R. A., Brooks, T. M. & Watson, J. E. Biodiversity: the ravages of guns, nets and bulldozers. Nature 536 , 143–145 (2016).

CAS   Google Scholar  

Griggs, D. et al. Sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nature 495 , 305–307 (2013).

Article   Google Scholar  

Elder, M. & Olsen, S. H. The design of environmental priorities in the SDGs. Glob. Policy 10 , 70–82 (2019).

Stafford-Smith, M. et al. Integration: the key to implementing the Sustainable Development Goals. Sustain. Sci. 12 , 911–919 (2017).

Work of the Statistical Commission Pertaining to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development: Resolution / Adopted by the General Assembly (A/RES/71/313) (United Nations General Assembly, 2017).

The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2019 (United Nations, 2019).

Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Rreport on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES, 2019).

Watson, J. E. M. et al. Protect the last of the wild. Nature 563 , 27–30 (2018).

Lenton, T. M. et al. Climate tipping points — too risky to bet against. Nature 575 , 592–595 (2019).

Global Burden of Disease Collaborative Network Global Burden of Disease Study 2015 (GBD 2015) Socio-Demographic Index (SDI) 1980–2015 (Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, 2016).

Strengthening the Environmental Dimensions of the Sustainable Development Goals in Asia and the Pacific: Stocktake of National Responses to Sustainable Development Goals 12, 14, and 15 (Asian Development Bank, 2019).

Diaz-Sarachaga, J. M., Jato-Espino, D. & Castro-Fresno, D. Is the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) index an adequate framework to measure the progress of the 2030 Agenda? Sustain. Dev. 26 , 663–671 (2018).

Lenzen, M. et al. International trade drives biodiversity threats in developing nations. Nature 486 , 109–112 (2012).

Lim, S. S. et al. Measuring the health-related Sustainable Development Goals in 188 countries: a baseline analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet 388 , 1813–1850 (2016).

Wagstaff, A. et al. Progress on impoverishing health spending in 122 countries: a retrospective observational study. Lancet Glob. Health 6 , E180–E192 (2018).

Allan, J. R. et al. Hotspots of human impact on threatened terrestrial vertebrates. PLoS Biol. 17 , e3000158 (2019).

Venter, O. et al. Sixteen years of change in the global terrestrial human footprint and implications for biodiversity conservation. Nat. Commun. 7 , 12558 (2016).

R Core Team R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2013).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank S. Z. Z. Rahim and D. C. J. Yeo for their contributions towards improving this paper. Y.Z. and L.R.C. acknowledge support from the National Research Foundation (NRF) Singapore under its Commonwealth Research Fellowship grant NRF-CSC-ICFC2017-05.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Republic of Singapore

Yiwen Zeng & L. Roman Carrasco

Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia

Sean Maxwell & James E. M. Watson

School of Geography, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia

Rebecca K. Runting

Natural Resources and Environmental Studies, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, British Columbia, Canada

Oscar Venter

Wildlife Conservation Society, Global Conservation Program, Bronx, NY, USA

James E. M. Watson

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Y.Z. and L.R.C. conceived the study. Y.Z. carried out the analyses. Y.Z., S.M., R.K.R., O.V., J.E.M.W. and L.R.C. contributed discussions and modelling insights. Y.Z., S.M., R.K.R., O.V., J.E.M.W. and L.R.C. wrote the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Yiwen Zeng or L. Roman Carrasco .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information.

Supplementary Figs. 1–3 and Tables 1 and 2.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Zeng, Y., Maxwell, S., Runting, R.K. et al. Environmental destruction not avoided with the Sustainable Development Goals. Nat Sustain 3 , 795–798 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0555-0

Download citation

Received : 30 March 2020

Accepted : 20 May 2020

Published : 29 June 2020

Issue Date : October 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0555-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Limitations to sustainable renewable jet fuels production attributed to cost than energy-water-food resource availability.

• Cheng Tung Chong

Nature Communications (2023)

Assessing coupling interactions in a safe and just operating space for regional sustainability

• Jiangxiao Qiu

Dual lattice oxygens in amorphous Zr-doped manganese oxide for highly efficient aerobic oxidation of 5-hydroxymethylfurfural to 2,5-furandicarboxylic acid

• Yonglin Wen

Science China Materials (2023)

Scientific evidence on the political impact of the Sustainable Development Goals

• Frank Biermann
• Thomas Hickmann
• Birka Wicke

Nature Sustainability (2022)

New sustainable utilization approach of livestock manure: Conversion to dual-reaction-center Fenton-like catalyst for water purification

• Yingtao Sun

npj Clean Water (2022)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

• Login To RMS System
• About JETIR URP
• About All Approval and Licence
• Conference/Special Issue Proposal
• Book and Dissertation/Thesis Publication
• How start New Journal & Software
• Best Papers Award
• Mission and Vision
• Reviewer Board
• Join JETIR URP
• Call For Paper
• Research Areas
• Publication Guidelines
• Sample Paper Format
• Submit Paper Online
• Processing Charges
• Hard Copy and DOI Charges
• Check Your Paper Status
• Current Issue
• Past Issues
• Special Issues
• Conference Proposal
• Recent Conference
• Published Thesis

Contact Us Click Here

Whatsapp contact click here, published in:.

Volume 6 Issue 2 February-2019 eISSN: 2349-5162

UGC and ISSN approved 7.95 impact factor UGC Approved Journal no 63975

Unique identifier.

Published Paper ID: JETIRZ006101

Registration ID: 197993

Page Number

Post-publication.

• Downlaod eCertificate, Confirmation Letter
• editor board member
• JETIR front page
• Journal Back Page
• UGC Approval 14 June W.e.f of CARE List UGC Approved Journal no 63975

Share This Article

Important links:.

• Call for Paper
• Submit Manuscript online

• ANUSHRI W. UPASE

Cite This Article

2349-5162 | Impact Factor 7.95 Calculate by Google Scholar An International Scholarly Open Access Journal, Peer-Reviewed, Refereed Journal Impact Factor 7.95 Calculate by Google Scholar and Semantic Scholar | AI-Powered Research Tool, Multidisciplinary, Monthly, Multilanguage Journal Indexing in All Major Database & Metadata, Citation Generator

Publication Details

Download paper / preview article.

Download Paper

Preview this article, download pdf, print this page.

Impact Factor:

Impact factor calculation click here current call for paper, call for paper cilck here for more info important links:.

• Follow Us on

• Developed by JETIR

• Open supplemental data
• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Original research article, environmental protection or economic growth the effects of preferences for individual freedoms.

• Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Faculty of Economics and Management, Prague, Czechia

Environmental protection is often seen in conflict with individual freedom and economic growth. The proponents of environmental protection suggest that the environment is a global resource that must be protected for future generations, even at the expense of economic growth and individual freedoms. The opponents claim that environmental protection should not come at the expense of individual rights and liberties, economic growth included. This paper studies the associations between public preferences for environmental protection, economic growth, and individual freedoms in eleven post-soviet countries on a representative dataset ( N = 20006, age 18+, M ± SD: 46,04 ± 17,07; 58% women, 46,8% upper education). Methodologically we rely on correlations, principal component analysis, and ordinal regression analyses. The results suggest that preferences for most personal freedoms studied predict environmental protection and economic growth preferences. In addition, preferences for civil rights, rights for democracy, gender equality, income inequality, and the low role of the army in politics predicted higher preferences for environmental protection and economic growth. Interestingly, the government’s right to video surveillance in public areas, though diminishing personal freedoms in terms of anonymity, predicted higher preferences for environmental protection and economic growth. The importance of God in lives proved to increase preferences for environmental protection but was negatively related to preferences for economic growth. We suggest the government communicate the need for environmental protection as a part of the rights for individual freedom to live in a clean environment.

1 Introduction

Increasing environmental degradation has received considerable attention from policymakers and academic communities ( Sinha et al., 2020 ; Cheng et al., 2021 ). Governments spelled out mitigation strategies for addressing the challenges of climate change in Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) adopted in the Paris Agreement. The European Union and national governments have set clear objectives of where to be by 2050, under the EU priorities and Green Deal policies and with the support of dedicated research programs, legislation, and funding. Numerous environmental regulations around the globe abound.

The literature indicates that the relationship between economic growth and environmental quality is U-shaped (Environmental Kuznets Curve, EKC). While economic performance in poorer countries leads to a decrease in environmental quality, the association is reversed in richer countries ( Shahbaz et al., 2013 ; Stern, 2017 ; Anwar et al., 2022 ). Research shows that Post Soviet Union countries have not yet achieved the turning point ( Yang et al., 2017 ; Hasanov et al., 2019 ; Hasanov et al., 2023 ), meaning the tradeoff between economic growth and environmental quality is very apparent and calls for the implementation of environmental regulations.

Environmental regulations may reduce immediate economic performance by imposing additional costs and risks ( Nikolaou et al., 2014 ; Demertzidis et al., 2015 ; Hashmi and Alam, 2019 ). Environmental regulations also motivate firms to adopt new technologies, which may increase economic growth in the long run ( Sarkodie et al., 2019 ; Fan and Hao, 2020 ; Dechezleprêtre, et al., 2022 ). Less developed countries are shown to be less willing to invest in long-term environmental protection at the expense of immediate satisfaction of their material needs (the poverty-induced environmental degradation, Masron and Subramaniam, 2019 ; Moseley, 2001 ). In fact, poverty is shown among the principal sources of environmental damage across the countries ( Masron and Subramaniam, 2019 ). Thus, the tradeoff between economic performance and environmental protection is essential, especially in less abundant countries ( Sarkodie and Strezov, 2019 ; Güngör et al., 2021 ; Al-Mulali et al., 2022 ).

Besides economic performance, environmental regulations inevitably affect individual freedoms, including the freedoms of democracy and the corresponding role of the government. Economic and political freedoms indicate systemic differences across countries and are shown to significantly affect environmental degradation, as well as the preferences and costs of environmental protection ( Zhang et al., 2019 ; Bruun, 2020 ; Halvorson, 2021 ; Anwar et al., 2022 ). However, preferences for political and economic freedoms are rarely considered in predicting preferences for environmental protection ( Joshi and Beck, 2018 ).

This paper aims to study the role of the preferences for individual freedoms and the role of the government in predicting preferences for environmental protection and economic growth in Post-Soviet countries. Since many of the Post-Soviet countries are highly religious, we also hypothesize that religiosity contributes to the preferences for environmental protection (similar to Eom, et al., 2021a ). The following hypotheses are tested:

• H1. Preferences for individual freedoms predict preference for environmental protection.

• H2. The preferred role of the government predicts preferences for environmental protection.

• H3. Religiosity affects the preference for environmental protection.

We rely on a representative survey-based dataset from eleven Post-Soviet countries (N = 20006, age 18+, M ± SD: 46,04 ± 17,07; 58% women, 46,8% upper education). As economic performance is of immense importance in less-affluent post-soviet countries, we also test a similar set of hypotheses to predict the preferences for economic growth as one of the country’s priorities. This enabled us to contrast factors predicting environmental protection to factors predicting preference for economic growth at the expense of other social goals, such as military spending or making the cities and countryside more beautiful. Methodologically we rely on exploratory principal component analysis to study the structure of the preferences for individual freedoms and logistic regression analyses to test the hypotheses.

The paper is structured as follows. The first section discusses the theoretical debate on the association between the freedom and environment protection. (false) dilemma between economic growth and environmental protection and briefly summarizes the literature on environmental regulations, the role of the government and individual freedom. The next sections describe data and models. The following sections present and discuss the results. The last sections conclude.

2 Freedom and environment protection. The theoretical debate

Freedom and environmental sustainability are two concepts that are closely linked ( Hannis, 2015 ). Sustainable development is defined as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” ( United Nations Brundtland Commission, 1987 ). To achieve this, it is essential that all members of society are able to make decisions freely and have access to resources so that they can make informed choices ( Boyle, 2007 ).

Environmental protection often conflicts with individual freedom ( Boyle, 2007 ; Shelton, 2012 ) though both are often seen as parts of human rights ( Osofsky, 2005 ). On one side of the debate, people argue that environmental protection must take precedence over individual freedom. Conversely, some argue that individual freedom should not be sacrificed in the name of environmental protection ( Boyle, 2007 ; Shelton, 2012 ). Those who argue in favor of prioritizing environmental protection over individual freedom say that the environment is a global resource that must be protected for future generations. They argue that individual freedom must be sacrificed to ensure that the environment is preserved and the global climate crisis is addressed. On the other hand, those who emphasize the importance of individual freedom argue that environmental protection should not come at the expense of individual rights and liberties. They argue that environmental regulations must be implemented in a way that does not overly restrict individual freedom ( Boyle, 2007 ; Shelton, 2012 ).

The debate over environmental protection and individual freedom is complex and difficult to resolve. It is important to recognize that both sides of the argument have valid points and that there is no easy answer. It is also important to recognize that the two sides of the debate are not mutually exclusive and that a compromise can be reached those respects both sides of the argument. For example, it is possible to implement environmental regulations in a way that does not overly restrict individual freedom while still achieving the goal of protecting the environment ( Klöpfer, 1996 ).

2.1 Economic growth or environmental protection? the (false) dilemma?

The role of environmental sustainability in limiting economic growth was first discussed in the aftermath of the Limits to Growth report ( Meadows, et al., 1972 ; Hannis, 2015 ). Leading economists widely recognized the depletion of non-renewable resources as a factor constraining long-term economic growth ( Solow, 1974 ; Stiglitz, 1974 ; Hartwick, 1978 ). The theories of sustainable development then emphasized limiting economic growth for the sake of environmental protection.

Environmental protection helps with many critical societal goals, such as long-term sustainability, a cleaner environment, reduction in climate change, and healthier food. However, it also requires additional resources and brings risks and limitations. It also creates new industries and promotes new technologies, which in the long run may increase economic performance ( Panayotou, 2016 ; Nikolaou, et al., 2021 ). On the firm level, better environmental performance can increase revenues via better access to particular markets, differentiating products, and selling pollution-control technology ( Ambec and Lanoie, 2008 ). Moreover, better environmental regulation increases resource use efficiency and, under some conditions, can increase economic performance (Porter hypothesis, Porter and Van der Linde, 1995 ; Brännlund and Lundgren, 2009 ). In addition, some factors, such as renewable energy, can positively impact both environmental protection and economic growth ( Hasanov et al., 2021 ); The total effect of environmental regulations on economic performance is unclear. The following Table 1 illustrates the two opposing views of literature on the topic.

TABLE 1 . The effect of environmental regulations on economic performance—two opposing views.

Ideally, environmental regulations should correspond to environmental quality. The relationships between economic growth and environmental quality may change the sign when the country reaches a certain level of economic performance as people can afford more efficient and environment-friendly production resulting in a cleaner environment as suggested by Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC, Shahbaz et al., 2013 ; Stern, 2017 ; Anwar et al., 2022 ). Yet, environmental protection is a global issue, and especially the developed countries are introducing new measures to improve the environment.

3 The factors affecting the preferences for environmental protection. Literature review

The impetus for environmental protection was originally verbalized in the 1970s in the United States in Fisk’s Theory of Responsible Consumption ( Fisk,1974 ), Henion and Kinnear’s Ecological Marketing (1976), and Kardash’s Ecologically Concerned Consumer ( Kardash, 1974 ). Studies initially focused on energy use, pollution connected to the automobile, oil, and chemical industries, as well as consumer reactions to advertising and labeling ( Henion and Kinnear, 1976 ; Kilbourne and Beckmann, 1998 ; Peattie, 2010 ). Subsequently, they turned to examine green purchases of food products and environmentally friendly items.

Research into the preferences for environmental protection has focused on identifying impacting factors to promote environmental protection. These factors have largely reflected the prevailing social and economic paradigms of the time. Early literature concentrated on economic incentives and financial capabilities of households, socio-demographic characteristics ( Laroche, et al., 2001 ; Robinson and Smith, 2002 ; Jenkins, et al., 2003 ), and environmental knowledge ( Peattie, 2010 ) and advised that government policy should primarily provide economic incentives to support pro-environmental behavior ( Bartelings and Sterner, 1999 ; Eriksson, 2004 ; Jackson, 2005 ; Wang et al., 2021 ; Shen and Wang, 2022 ). This approach is still in use today in waste management, where households are incentivized to sort communal waste by making the disposal of sorted waste free of charge. The socio-demographic factors as potential predictors of preferences for environmental protection are often used as control variables in more recent studies ( Walia et al., 2020 ). The studies based on economic data suggested that more affluent households have a greater environmental footprint yet can afford to buy “greener” products ( Cymru, 2002 ; Lenzen and Murray, 2003 ; Huang et al., 2022 ). Therefore, a rise in income may lead to an increase in pro-environmental consumption.

After focusing on economic, demographic, or knowledge factors, the research has shifted its focus to attitudes and values, which were recognized to be often more important in predicting environmental protection than economic or socio-demographic. For example, Schwartz’s value model and altruistic values have been reported to be linked to pro-environmental behavior ( Han et al., 2007 ; Carrus et al., 2008 ; Peattie, 2010 ; Wang L. et al., 2019 ; Wang Y. et al., 2019 ). Surprisingly, not all pro-environmental values lead to greater environmental protection. For example, pro-environmental values may not always lead to an increase in such activities as recycling ( Barr, 2007 ), buying organic food, or avoiding leaving appliances on standby ( Lyndhurst, 2004 ). Research has also indicated that environmental attitudes, environmental knowledge, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, conditional value, and emotional value all positively affect pro-environmental intentions and behaviors ( Nekmahmud et al., 2022 ).

3.1 Government regulations, freedom, and environmental protection

Governmental regulations are frequently called upon to ensure environmental protection ( Sarkodie and Strezov, 2019 ; Güngör et al., 2021 ; Al-Mulali et al., 2022 ). However, restrictive governmental regulations “circumscribes the autonomy (freedom) of the members of society” ( Porket, 2003 , p. 50). The post-soviet countries present a wide variety of attitudes to personal freedoms ranging from more Westernized democratic Baltic countries admitted to European Union to a collection of autocracies without any extensive, market-based liberalization in Central Asia ( Hartwell, 2022 ).

Economic and political freedoms have been shown to affect the environment significantly regarding the preferences for and costs of environmental protection ( Zhang et al., 2019 ; Bruun, 2020 ; Halvorson, 2021 ; Anwar et al., 2022 ). Yet, the preferences for political and economic freedoms are rarely considered for predicting the environmental preferences of the population ( Joshi and Beck, 2018 ). In this paper, we hypothesize that the preferences for individual freedoms are significant predictors of the preferences for environmental protection (H1).

Environment protection requires regulation of personal behavior, which can be monitored via all kinds of surveillance means, including street cameras, monitoring of emails, and collecting and storing personal information. These means can increase the efficiency of environmental regulations but decrease individual freedoms. In this paper, we hypothesize that the preferences for government-managed video surveillance, monitoring of emails, and collecting information about everyone predict preferences for environmental protection (H2).

Personal freedoms are often exchanged for (the illusion of) protection from the government ( Hofstede, et al., 2005 ). We test whether the preference on the amount of government responsibility (government taxing the rich and subsidizing the poor, making the incomes equal, government owning the businesses, government paying unemployment benefits, people obeying their rulers) predicts preferences for environmental protection.

Personal freedom is also reflected in the procedure of election. We hypothesize that the preferred role of the government and the way it is elected are significant predictors of the preferences for environmental protection (H2). We employ the following indicators to account for the election procedure: people choose their leaders in free elections, the importance of democracy, personal freedoms as a sign of democracy, women have the same rights as men, and the army takes over when the government is incompetent (disagreement with).

3.2 The role of religion

The post-soviet region is largely diversified in religious confessions and the role assigned to God. The scale ranges from relatively secular Baltic countries (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), through multi-religious Russia, to essentially 90% religious Islamic (mostly) Central Asia ( Simons and Westerlund, 2016 ). After the fall of the Soviet Union, religious confessions gained more power in defining, interfering and affecting the ideas of personal freedom and the environment ( Froese, 2004 ).

Religion has a strong influence on people’s preferences to protect the environment. Many religious teachings incorporate conservation and stewardship of the environment, providing an ethical and moral incentive to protect the environment ( Djupe and Hunt, 2009 ; Jenkins and Chapple, 2011 ). Religious beliefs can also shape people’s attitudes toward the environment in terms of the value they place on nature, the importance of maintaining a balance between humanity and nature, and the need to be good stewards of the Earth ( Jenkins and Chapple, 2011 ; Hope, and Jones, 2014 ; Bergmann, 2017 ). This can lead to an increased commitment to environmental protection and conservation, as well as greater environmental concern and activism ( Sherkat and Ellison, 2007 ). Thus, in the line of Eom, et al. (2021b) , we suggest that religiosity is a significant predictor for the preferences for environmental protection in post-soviet countries (H3). We employ two indicators for religious beliefs: the subjective importance of God in life and the level of agreement with the religious authorities interpreting the laws.

4 Materials and methods

4.1 the study.

This paper aims to study the impact of preferences for economic (and other) freedoms and the expected role of the government on preferences for environmental protection in the eleven Post Soviet Union countries (Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Lithuania, Russia, Tajikistan, Ukraine). Religiosity is suggested to be the next factor to consider. The following hypotheses are tested:

H1. Preferences for individual freedoms predict preference for environmental protection.

The indicators of the preferences for individual freedoms include the preferred right of the government to:

• Keep people under video surveillance in public areas.

• Monitor all emails and any other information exchanged on the internet.

• Collect information about anyone living in the country without their knowledge.

H2. The preferred role of the government predicts preferences for environmental protection. The Indicators for the role of the government include:

• Governments tax the rich and subsidize the poor.

• Religious authorities interpret the laws.

• People choose their leaders in free elections.

• People receive state aid for unemployment.

• The army takes over when the government is incompetent.

• Civil rights protect people’s liberty against oppression.

• Women have the same rights as men.

• The state makes people’s incomes equal

• People obey their rulers

H3. Religiosity affects the preference for environmental protection.

The indicators for religiosity include.

• Importance of God in life

• Religious authorities should interpret the laws

As economic performance is of immense importance in Post-Soviet countries, we also test similar hypotheses to predict the preferences for economic growth as one of the country’s priorities. This will enable us to contrast the importance and effects of environmental protection to the other social goals.

4.2 The data

We employ a representative dataset collected in the World Value Study and European Value Study in 11 post-Soviet Union countries in 2017–2020 (Joint dataset, EVS/WVS, 2021 ; see also EVS, 2020a ; EVS, 2021 ; Haerpfer et al., 2021 ). The choice of countries was based on data availability. All the Post-Soviet Union countries present in the EVS/WVS dataset were incorporated into the analysis. The target population was defined as persons aged 18 and older who had been residing in the country within private households for the past 6 months before the fieldwork ( EVS, 2020b ; WVS, 2020 ). The sampling relied on a representative single-stage or multi-stage probability sampling of the country’s adult population, 18 years old and older. The sample size was set as an effective sample size: with N minimum of 1,500 for countries over 100 million, 1,200 for countries with a population over 2 million, and 1,000 for countries below 2 million. A resulting total sample embraced 20006 respondents aged 18+ (mean age ± SD: 46,04 ± 17,07, 58% women, 46,8% upper education (Upper level: ISCED 2011 levels 5–8—short cycle tertiary and higher). Most surveys were conducted using face-to-face interviews ( WVS, 2020 ; EVS, 2020b ) The data are available for non-commercial purposes at the web pages of European and World Value Studies ( https://europeanvaluesstudy.eu/methodology-data-documentation/survey-2017/joint-evs-wvs-2017-2021-dataset/ , accessed 11.11.21).

4.3 Indicators

The following section provides the exact wording of the questions employed in the further analysis and the distribution of the respondents.

4.3.1 Preference for environmental protection at the expense of economic growth

4.3.1.1 protecting environment vs. economic growth.

“Here are two statements people sometimes make when discussing the environment and economic growth. Which of them comes closer to your own point of view?

• Protecting the environment should be given priority, even if it causes slower economic growth and some loss of jobs.” (53,70% of the respondents),”

• Economic growth and creating jobs should be the top priority, even if the environment suffers to some extent. (46,30% of the respondents)" ( EVS, 2020a ; 2021 ; Haerpfer et al., 2021 ).

The distributions of the respondents in studied countries are presented in Figure 1 below (end of the paper) and Supplementary Table SA3 .

FIGURE 1 . Protecting the environment vs. economic growth. The distribution of the respondents. Source: own computations based on the data EVS/WVS ( EVS, 2020a ; EVS, 2021 ; Haerpfer et al., 2021 ).

4.3.1.2 Economic growth as one of the country’s priorities

• “A high level of economic growth” (57,20% of the respondents)

• “Making sure this country has strong defense forces” (21,40% of the respondents)

• “Seeing that people have more say about how things are done at their jobs and in their communities (14,90 of the respondents)”

• “Trying to make our cities and countryside more beautiful (6,50% of the respondents)", ( EVS, 2020a ; EVS, 2021 ; Haerpfer et al., 2021 )

“People sometimes talk about what the aims of this country should be for the next ten years. On this card are listed some of the goals that different people would give top priority. Would you please say which one of these you, consider the most important?”

Figure 2 below and Supplementary Table SA4 present the distributions of the respondents in countries.

FIGURE 2 . Aims of the country, first choice. The distribution of the respondents. Source: own computations.

4.3.1.3 Personal freedom versus the role of the government

This study considers the capability of the government to control individual lives via video surveillance, monitoring the information exchanged on the internet, and collecting information about individuals without their knowledge. The corresponding question in the questionnaire was formulated as follows:

• Keep people under video surveillance in public areas

• Monitor all emails and any other information exchanged on the internet

• Collect information about anyone living in [COUNTRY] without their knowledge

1 - Definitely should have the right; 2—Probably should have the right; 3—Probably should not have the right; 4—Definitely should not have the right” ( EVS, 2020a ; EVS, 2021 ; Haerpfer et al., 2021 )

“Do you think that the [COUNTRY] government should or should not have the right to do the following :

We suggest that all three questions are related to preferences for environmental protection. For example, monitoring people in public areas might be used as a tool to localize and personalize the origins of garbage lest on unauthorized places. The monitoring of the emails and collecting information may provide information on intentions to comply with government regulations to protect the environment.

Personal freedom goes hand in hand with personal responsibility. The corresponding questions in the questionnaire were formulated as follows:

• People should take more responsibility; 10- The government should take more responsibility

• Private ownership of business should be increased; 10- Government ownership of business should be increased” ( EVS, 2020a ; 2021 ; Haerpfer et al., 2021 )

“On this card you see a number of opposite views on various issues. How would you place your views on this scale?

The distribution of the respondents is presented in Supplementary Table SA5 .

4.3.1.4 Personal freedoms and rights as essential signs of democracy

• People obey their rulers” ( EVS, 2020a ; EVS, 2021 ; Haerpfer et al., 2021 )

“Many things are desirable, but not all of them are essential characteristics of democracy. Please tell me for each of the following things how essential you think it is as a characteristic of democracy. Use this scale where 1 means “not at all an essential characteristic of democracy” and 10 means it definitely is “an essential characteristic of democracy.”

The distributions of the respondents are presented in Supplementary Table SA6 .

4.3.1.5 The level and importance of democracy

“How important is it for you to live in a country that is governed democratically? On this scale where 1 means it is “not at all important” and 10 means “absolutely important,” what position would you choose?” ( EVS, 2020a ; EVS, 2021 ; Haerpfer et al., 2021 )

“And how democratically is this country being governed today? Again using a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 means that it is “not at all democratic” and 10 means that it is “completely democratic,” what position would you choose?” ( EVS, 2020a ; EVS, 2021 ; Haerpfer et al., 2021 )

The distributions of respondents are presented in Supplementary Table SA7 .

4.3.1.6 The attitude to competition and work

Environmental restrictions highly affect the competitiveness of the firms and the availability of jobs ( Iraldo, et al., 2011 ; Dechezleprêtre and Sato, 2017 ; Borsatto and Amui, 2019 ). We control for the attitude to competition (good-harmful) and the importance of work and equal pay. The answers to the following questions are used as indicators.

• Competition is good, 10—competition is harmful

• Incomes should be made more equal, 10—We need larger income differences as incentives” ( EVS, 2020a ; 2021 ; Haerpfer et al., 2021 )

• Work. 1—Very important; 2—Rather important; 3—Not very important; 4—Not at all important.” ( EVS, 2020a ; EVS, 2021 ; Haerpfer et al., 2021 )

“On this card, you see a number of opposite views on various issues. How would you place your views on this scale?

“Please say, for each of the following, how important it is in your life.

The distribution of the respondents is presented in Supplementary Table SA8 .

4.3.1.7 Importance of God and socio-demographic characteristics

Following Eom, et al. (2021b) , we study the effect of religiosity on preference for environmental protection at the expense of economic growth. The question was formulated as follows:

• Please use this card to indicate—10 means very important and 1 means not at all important.” ( EVS, 2020a ; EVS, 2021 ; Haerpfer et al., 2021 )

“And how important is God in your life?

The resulting variable presented mean of 7,57 and Std. Deviation of 3,175. A total sample embraced 20006 respondents aged 18+ (mean age ± SD: 46,04 ± 17,07, 58% women, 46,8% upper education, the distribution of the respondents split by countries see Supplementary Table SA2 ).

4.4 The method

First, we conducted an exploratory Principal Component Analysis to study the perceptions of individual freedoms as signs of democracy. Then we rely on ordinal regression analysis to test the hypotheses ( Formula 1 , the numbers like a 1-13 denote thirteen coefficients corresponding to thirteen indicators of preferences for freedom versus government, see the description of the variables beneath the equation)

Environment vs. Growth i

• two indicators of preferences for environment vs. economic growth and economic growth as a country priority subsequently.

Freedom versus government

• Government should have the right to monitor people via internet, in public areas and collect information without their knowledge.

• Government should tax the rich and subsidize the poor.

• People have the freedom of election.

• People have the right to state aid for unemployment.

• In case of an incompetent government, the army takes over

• Civil rights protect people’s liberty

• Gender equality of rights and freedoms

• More income equality

• People need to obey their rulers

• People should take more responsibility, not the government

• Private or government business ownership is preferable

• Democracy is important

• The country is democratic

Competition and work

• Competition is good/harmful

• Incomes should be more/less equal

• Importance of work

Religiosity

• The importance of God in life

• country dummies for Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Lithuania, Russia, Tajikistan, Ukraine

Socio-demographic characteristics

• Age

• Gender

• Education

The two models corresponding to two dependent variables were estimated via ordinal logit regression ( Formula 1 ). The Pearson correlations of independent variables are presented in Supplementary Table SA1 . None of the correlations exceeded 0,5; thus, multicollinearity is unlikely.

5.1 Individual freedoms as characteristics of democracy. The results of the Principal Component Analysis

Before discussing the results of the Principal Component Analysis, we present the setting of the analysis and the indicators measuring the suitability of the data for this type of the analysis. The Principal Component Analysis was set as follows: rotation Method - Varimax with Kaiser normalization; the number of components - according to Eigenvalue (>1). Rotation converged in 3 iterations. The Bartlett test of sphericity with a Chi-Square value 106609,60 ( p < 0,001) and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of sampling adequacy with a value equal to 0,790 (>0,6) suggests that the data are suitable to identify factor dimensions. The indicators of applicability of the Principal component analysis, as presented above, suggest that the method is suitable for the data.

The results of the Principal Component Analysis are presented in Tables 2 , 3 . Four extracted components altogether were able to explain 51,29% of the variance.

TABLE 2 . Principal component analysis for individual freedoms as signs of democracy. Total variance explained.

TABLE 3 . Principal component analysis for individual freedoms as signs of democracy. Rotated Component Matrix.

As the results suggest, the indicators for freedom (as a sign of democracy) divided themselves into two categories described by two latent variables ( Table 3 ). The first views democracy as a system representing civil rights and freedoms, implying free elections, gender equality, liberty, and the right to receive state aid if unemployed. The other group of variables describes democracy in terms of the increased role of the state, army, and religion, implying the state provides more income equality. If the state is incompetent, the army takes over, religious authorities interpret the laws, and the population is obedient to their rulers. The first latent variable constitutes the freedom apex, while the second constitutes the opposite.

Personal freedoms as predictors of preference for environmental protection and economic growth. The results of logistic regression analyses.

The results of logistic regression analyses ( Formula 1 ) are presented in Table 4 .

TABLE 4 . Predicting environmental protection vs. economic growth, economic growth vs. other goals. The results of ordinal regressions.

The summary of the statistically significant results from Table 4 is presented in Table 5 . The positive associations are denoted by "+", the negative ones, by “-”.

TABLE 5 . Summary of results of ordinal regressions ( Formula 1 ; Table 5). Statistically significant associations.

6 Discussion

6.1 hypotheses 1 and 2: preferences for individual freedoms and the role of the government predict preferences for environmental protection..

This paper studied the association between the preferences for individual freedom, the role of the government, and preferences for environmental protection. The results of the analysis above indicate that associations between environmental protection, economic growth, and individual freedoms are far from uniform. On one side, personal freedoms (civil rights, the importance of democracy, gender equality, pay inequality if it occurs, no role of the army in politics) predicted higher preferences for environment protection at the expense of economic growth and higher growth itself as opposed to other societal goals. This indicates personal freedoms are positively related to environmental protection. On the other side, governmental video surveillance in public areas showed to be positively related to both environmental protection and economic growth. However, the right of the government to internet monitoring decreased preferences for economic growth but not for environmental protection.

The ambivalence above poses questions about the right type of freedom and control affecting environmental and economic outcomes. As individual freedoms start and end with the freedoms of others, we can hypothesize that the preference for video surveillance in public places corresponds to the need to monitor the activities of fellow citizens, traffic, and other features of the outer environment. In the case of environmental protection, it is understandable as it allows more efficient environment monitoring and enforcement of environmental regulations. As concerned with economic growth (the country’s priority), video surveillance ensures more safety ( Sharma et al., 2022 ), more efficient crime abatement ( Garibotto, 2010 ), and rule enforcement ( Yesil, 2006 ).

Though video surveillance violates some human rights for privacy ( Granholm, 1986 ), it is considered one of the most effective means for an emergency response to traffic or the environment ( Noguera et al., 2011 ; Chung, 2012 ; Chen, et al., 2014 ). Video surveillance is also one of the most effective ways for real-time environment control ( Stipanicev, et al., 2007 ) and an essential feature of smart cities ( Korchani and Sethom, K. 2021 ).

Environmental regulations substantially disturb competition ( Iraldo et al., 2011 ; Dechezleprêtre and Sato, 2017 ; Borsatto and Amui, 2019 ), though there are considerable efforts to integrate green policy into competition legislation ( Kingston, 2010 ). However, our results report that the importance of competition significantly predicted a preference for environmental protection at the expense of economic growth and the preference for economic growth as a priority over other goals. This ambivalent result is still to be explained. Besides competition, the importance of work in life predicted a preference for economic growth.

6.2 Hypothesis 3: Religiosity predicts the preference for environmental protection.

The importance of God showed to positively predict environmental protection and negatively predict economic growth. The matter of environment is of immense importance in religious beliefs. In Islam, the environment bears much importance, and the rights and responsibilities of a man with respect to the environment are clearly stated ( Omer, 2012 ). In Christianity, the belief in a controlling god is significantly associated with environmental guilt ( Eom, et al., 2021a ) and environmental justice forms one of the principles of eco-theology ( Hrynkow, 2017 ). Surrendering Environmental Identities is viewed as one of the ways of becoming one with God ( Roshani and Rathnasiri, 2018 ). The importance of God appears to be one of the significant predictors of environmental preferences, which should not be forgotten. On the other hand, the intrusion of religious authorities into secular processes in interpreting the laws showed to predict lower preferences for economic growth.

6.2.1 The country differences

Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Lithuania, and Ukraine report higher importance of economic growth as the most important aim of the country, while Estonia presented lower. Oppositely, Azerbaijan, Estonia, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, and Ukraine showed more preference for environmental protection at the expense of economic growth compared to Russia, while Armenia, Belarus, Lithuania, and Tajikistan reported more preference for economic growth at the expense of environmental protection compared to Russia (controlling for all the variables presented in table Results).

6.2.2 Age, gender, education

Women prefer more environmental protection at the expense of economic growth compared to men. People with lower education place less importance on economic growth than higher-educated people.

7 Conclusion

The association between economic development and environmental degradation generally follows the U shape titled Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC, Shahbaz et al., 2013 ; Stern, 2017 ; Anwar et al., 2022 ). Lower-income countries generally reside on the beginning part of the curve, meaning that economic development damages the environment, while more well-to-do countries present a more favorable increasing relationship between economic development and the state of the environment. The Post Soviet countries generally belong to the first part of the curve, meaning that economic development, if not corrected by environmental regulations, increases environmental pollution levels and generally damages the environment ( Yang et al., 2017 ; Hasanov et al., 2019 ; Hasanov et al., 2023 ). Especially in these countries, the environment protection measures go against economic performance, and the tradeoff between more economic growth and environmental protection is more pronounced.

In this paper, we run Principal Component Analysis to study the structure of preferences for personal freedom and conducted logistic regression analyses to study the effects of preferences for individual freedoms on preferences for environmental protection at the expense of economic growth and economic growth as one of the country’s priorities. We employed a representative sample from eleven Post Soviet Union countries (N = 20006, age 18+, M ± SD: 46,04 ± 17,07; 58% women, 46,8% upper education).The results suggest that personal freedoms (civil rights, importance of democracy, gender equality, income inequality, no role of army in politics) predicted preferences for environmental protection at the expense of economic growth and growth as opposed to other societal goals. However, the right of the government to surveillance in public areas, though diminishing personal freedoms in terms of anonymity, proved to be positively related to both environmental protection and economic growth as one of the country’s priorities. Though environmental regulations generally decrease the firm competitiveness, the preferences for competition proved to predict higher preferences for environmental regulations.

Last but not least, religious beliefs proved to predict higher preferences for environmental protection but lower preferences for economic growth. In fact, in many religions, God is considered a part of the environment, and the rights and responsibilities of man to the environment are the central part of religious beliefs ( Omer, 2012 ; Hrynkow, 2017 ; Eom, et al., 2021a ). The role of religion in shaping individual preferences needs more research.

Overall, the results supported the view that even though environmental regulations generally reduce individual freedoms and obstruct economic performance in many cases, they are in line with the preferences for individual freedoms in many aspects. This may indicate the increasing understanding of a cleaner environment as an individual right that widens the spectrum of preferred individual freedoms. This result is rather optimistic, especially in the set of the Post Soviet Union countries, many of which are still struggling economically and yet consider the environment as a part of (or at least in line with) their individual freedoms.

These results suggest several implications. First, though environmental regulations may harm particular firms, society views the benefits it provides as a part of their freedoms. If communicated correctly, the measures are likely to gain social support. Second, the support for environmental protection measures should be studied jointly with other preferences for individual freedoms as they seem to form a specific system. Third, the broad society seems to be aware of environmental impacts and, to at larger extent, recognizes the role of the environment even at the expense of economic growth. Thus the government may communicate the need for environmental protection as a part of individual freedoms for a clean environment.

Data availability statement

Publicly available datasets were analyzed in this study. This data can be found here: https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/wvs.jsp .

Ethics statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Ethics committee Czech University of Life Sciences, Prague. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author contributions

Conceptualization, IC and LS; methodology, IC; data curation, AO; writing—original draft preparation, AO and DM; writing—review and editing, AO, LS, IC, DM, and SK; supervision, LS; project administration, LS; funding acquisition, LS. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work and approved it for publication.

The paper supported by the internal research Project No. 2021B0002: The post-Soviet Region in the Context of International Trade Activities: Opportunities and Threats Arising from Mutual Cooperation, solved at the Department of Economics, Faculty of Economics and Management, Czech University of Life Sciences in Prague.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2023.1129236/full#supplementary-material

Al-Mulali, U., Gholipour, H. F., and Solarin, S. A. (2022). Investigating the environmental kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis: Does government effectiveness matter? Evidence from 170 countries. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 24 (11), 12740–12755.

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ambec, S., and Lanoie, P. (2008). Does it pay to be green? A systematic overview . The Academy of Management Perspectives , 45–62.

Google Scholar

Anwar, M. A., Zhang, Q., Asmi, F., Hussain, N., Plantinga, A., Zafar, M. W., et al. (2022). Global perspectives on environmental kuznets curve: A bibliometric review. Gondwana Res. 103, 135–145. doi:10.1016/j.gr.2021.11.010

Barbera, A. J., and McConnell, V. D. (1990). The impact of environmental regulations on industry productivity: Direct and indirect effects. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 18 (1), 50–65. doi:10.1016/0095-0696(90)90051-y

Barr, S. (2007). Factors influencing environmental attitudes and behaviors: A UK case study of household waste management. Environ. Behav. 39 (4), 435–473. doi:10.1177/0013916505283421

Bartelings, H., and Sterner, T. (1999). Household waste management in a Swedish municipality: Determinants of waste disposal, recycling and composting. Environ. Resour. Econ. 13, 473–491. doi:10.1023/a:1008214417099

Becker, R. A. (2005). Air pollution abatement costs under the clean air act: Evidence from the PACE survey. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 50 (1), 144–169. doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2004.09.001

Bergmann, S. (2017). Religion, space, and the environment . Routledge .

Borsatto, J. M. L. S., and Amui, L. B. L. (2019). Green innovation: Unfolding the relation with environmental regulations and competitiveness. Resour. Conservation Recycl. 149, 445–454. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.06.005

Boyle, A. (2007). Human rights or environmental rights? A reassessment . Fordham Environmental Law Review , 471–511.

Brännlund, R., and Lundgren, T. (2009). Environmental policy without costs? A review of the porter hypothesis. Int. Rev. Environ. Resour. Econ. 3 (2), 75–117. doi:10.1561/101.00000020

Bruun, O. (2020). Environmental protection in the hands of the state: Authoritarian environmentalism and popular perceptions in vietnam. J. Environ. Dev. 29 (2), 171–195. doi:10.1177/1070496520905625

Carrus, G., Passafaro, P., and Bonnes, M. (2008). Emotions, habits and rational choices in ecological behaviours: The case of recycling and use of public transportation. J. Environ. Psychol. 28 (1), 51–62. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.09.003

Chen, X., Ruan, Y., Yu, J., and Chen, Q. (2014). Short-chain dehydrogenase/reductase catalyzing the final step of noscapine biosynthesis is localized to laticifers in opium poppy. Sensors Transducers 166 (3), 173–184. doi:10.1111/tpj.12379

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cheng, Y., Sinha, A., Ghosh, V., Sengupta, T., and Luo, H. (2021). Carbon tax and energy innovation at crossroads of carbon neutrality: Designing a sustainable decarbonization policy. J. Environ. Manag. 294, 112957. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112957

Chung, W. H. (2012). A smartphone watch for mobile surveillance service. Personal Ubiquitous Comput. 16 (6), 687–696. doi:10.1007/s00779-011-0435-8

Cordero, R. R., Roth, P., and Da Silva, L. (2005). Economic growth or environmental protection?: The false dilemma of the Latin-American countries. Environ. Sci. Policy 8 (4), 392–398. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2005.04.005

Cymru, W. W. F. (2002). The footprint of wales . Cardiff, UK: A Report to the Welsh Assembly Government WWF Cymru .

Dean, T. J., Brown, R. L., and Stango, V. (2000). Environmental regulation as a barrier to the formation of small manufacturing establishments: A longitudinal examination. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 40 (1), 56–75. doi:10.1006/jeem.1999.1105

Dechezleprêtre, A., Nachtigall, D., and Venmans, F. (2022). The joint impact of the European Union emissions trading system on carbon emissions and economic performance. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 118, 102758. doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2022.102758

Dechezleprêtre, A., and Sato, M. (2017). The impacts of environmental regulations on competitiveness. Review of environmental economics and policy .

Demertzidis, N., Tsalis, T. A., Loupa, G., and Nikolaou, I. E. (2015). A benchmarking framework to evaluate business climate change risks: A practical tool suitable for investors decision-making process. Clim. Risk Manag. 10, 95–105. doi:10.1016/j.crm.2015.09.002

Djupe, P. A., and Hunt, P. K. (2009). Beyond the Lynn White thesis: Congregational effects on environmental concern. J. Sci. Study Relig. 48 (4), 670–686. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2009.01472.x

Eom, K., Saad, C. S., and Kim, H. S. (2021a). Religiosity moderates the link between environmental beliefs and pro-environmental support: The role of belief in a controlling god. Personality Soc. Psychol. Bull. 47 (6), 891–905. doi:10.1177/0146167220948712

Eom, K., Tok, T. Q. H., Saad, C. S., and Kim, H. S. (2021b). Religion, environmental guilt, and pro-environmental support: The opposing pathways of stewardship belief and belief in a controlling god. J. Environ. Psychol. 78, 101717. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101717

Eren, B. M., Taspinar, N., and Gokmenoglu, K. K. (2019). The impact of financial development and economic growth on renewable energy consumption: Empirical analysis of India. Sci. Total Environ. 663, 189–197. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.01.323

Eriksson, C. (2004). Can green consumerism replace environmental regulation?—A differentiated-products example. Resour. energy Econ. 26 (3), 281–293. doi:10.1016/j.reseneeco.2003.10.001

C. Haerpfer, R. Inglehart, A. Moreno, C. Welzel, K. Kizilova, J. Diez-Medranoet al. et al. (2021). World values survey: Round seven–country-pooled datafile (Madrid, Spain & Vienna, Austria: JD Systems Institute & WVSA Secretariat ). doi:10.14281/18241.13

EVS (2020a). European values study 2017: Integrated dataset (EVS 2017). GESIS data archive . Cologne. ZA7500 Data file Version 4.0.0. doi:10.4232/1.13560

EVS (2021). European values study 2017: Ukraine (EVS 2017) . GESIS Data Archive . Cologne. ZA7539 Data file Version 1.0.0. doi:10.4232/1.13714

EVS (2020b). European values study (EVS) 2017: Methodological guidelines. (GESIS papers, 2020/13) . Köln. (url: https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/70110) (accessed October 21, 2021).

EVS/WVS (2021). European values study and World values survey: Joint EVS/WVS 2017-2021 dataset (joint EVS/WVS) . Cologne: GESIS Data Archive . ZA7505. Dataset Version 2.0.0. doi:10.4232/1.13737

Fan, W., and Hao, Y. (2020). An empirical research on the relationship amongst renewable energy consumption, economic growth and foreign direct investment in China. Renew. energy 146, 598–609. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2019.06.170

Filbeck, G., and Gorman, R. F. (2004). The relationship between the environmental and financial performance of public utilities. Environ. Resour. Econ. 29 (2), 137–157. doi:10.1023/b:eare.0000044602.86367.ff

Fisk, G. (1974). Marketing and the ecological crisis . New York: Harper & Row .

Froese, P. (2004). After atheism: An analysis of religious monopolies in the post-communist world. Sociol. Relig. 65 (1), 57–75. doi:10.2307/3712507

Garibotto, G. (2010). “Multi-camera human re-identification for video security of museums,” in Proceedings of the EVA 2010 conference on electronic imaging & the visual arts ( Firenze, Italy , 21–23.

Granholm, J. M. (1986). Video surveillance on public streets: The constitutionality of invisible citizen searches. U. Det. L. Rev. 64, 687.

Gray, W. B., and Shadbegian, R. J. (2003). Plant vintage, technology, and environmental regulation. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 46 (3), 384–402. doi:10.1016/s0095-0696(03)00031-7

Güngör, H., Abu-Goodman, M., Olanipekun, I. O., and Usman, O. (2021). Testing the environmental kuznets curve with structural breaks: The role of globalization, energy use, and regulatory quality in south Africa. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 28 (16), 20772–20783. doi:10.1007/s11356-020-11843-4

Halvorson, C. (2021). Valuing clean air: The EPA and the economics of environmental protection . Oxford University Press .

Han, S., Lerner, J. S., and Keltner, D. (2007). Feelings and consumer decision making: The appraisal-tendency framework. J. consumer Psychol. 17 (3), 158–168. doi:10.1016/s1057-7408(07)70023-2

Hannis, M. (2015). Freedom and environment: Autonomy, human flourishing and the political philosophy of sustainability . Routledge .

Hartwell, C. A. (2022). Part of the problem? The eurasian economic union and environmental challenges in the former soviet union. Problems Post-Communism 69 (4-5), 317–329. doi:10.1080/10758216.2021.1960173

Hartwick, J. M. (1978). Substitution among exhaustible resources and intergenerational equity. Rev. Econ. Stud. 45 (2), 347–354.

Hasanov, F. J., Khan, Z., Hussain, M., and Tufail, M. (2021). Theoretical framework for the carbon emissions effects of technological progress and renewable energy consumption. Sustain. Dev. 29 (5), 810–822. doi:10.1002/sd.2175

Hasanov, F. J., Mikayilov, J. I., Mukhtarov, S., and Suleymanov, E. (2019). Does CO 2 emissions–economic growth relationship reveal EKC in developing countries? Evidence from Kazakhstan. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 26, 30229–30241. doi:10.1007/s11356-019-06166-y

Hasanov, F. J., Mukhtarov, S., and Suleymanov, E. (2023). The role of renewable energy and total factor productivity in reducing CO2 emissions in Azerbaijan. Fresh insights from a new theoretical framework coupled with Autometrics. Energy Strategy Rev. 47, 101079. doi:10.1016/j.esr.2023.101079

Hashmi, R., and Alam, K. (2019). Dynamic relationship among environmental regulation, innovation, CO2 emissions, population, and economic growth in oecd countries: A panel investigation. J. Clean. Prod. 231, 1100–1109. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.325

Henion, K. E., and Kinnear, T. C. (1976). Ecological marketing . Chicago, IL: Am. Mark. Assoc .

Heyes, A. (2009). Is environmental regulation bad for competition? A survey. J. Regul. Econ. 36 (1), 1–28. doi:10.1007/s11149-009-9099-y

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., and Minkov, M. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind , 2. New York: McGraw-Hill .

Hope, A. L., and Jones, C. R. (2014). The impact of religious faith on attitudes to environmental issues and carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies: A mixed methods study. Technol. Soc. 38, 48–59. doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2014.02.003

Hrynkow, C. W. (2017). Greening god? Christian ecotheology, environmental justice, and socio-ecological flourishing. Environ. Justice 10 (3), 81–87. doi:10.1089/env.2017.0009

Huang, H., Long, R., Chen, H., Li, Q., Wu, M., and Gan, X. (2022). Knowledge domain and research progress in green consumption: A phase upgrade study. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 29 (26), 38797–38824. doi:10.1007/s11356-022-19200-3

Iraldo, F., Testa, F., Melis, M., and Frey, M. (2011). A literature review on the links between environmental regulation and competitiveness. Environ. Policy Gov. 21 (3), 210–222. doi:10.1002/eet.568

Jackson, T. (2005). Motivating sustainable consumption. Sustain. Dev. Res. Netw. 29 (1), 30–40.

Jenkins, R. R., Martinez, S. A., Palmer, K., and Podolsky, M. J. (2003). The determinants of household recycling: A material-specific analysis of recycling program features and unit pricing. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 45 (2), 294–318. doi:10.1016/s0095-0696(02)00054-2

Jenkins, W., and Chapple, C. K. (2011). Religion and environment. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 36, 441–463. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-042610-103728

Joshi, P., and Beck, K. (2018). Democracy and carbon dioxide emissions: Assessing the interactions of political and economic freedom and the environmental kuznets curve. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 39, 46–54. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2017.10.020

Kardash, W. J. (1974). Corporate responsibility and the quality of life: Developing the ecologically concerned consumer. Ecological marketing . Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association , 5–10.

Kilbourne, W. E., and Beckmann, S. C. (1998). Review and critical assessment of research on marketing and the environment. J. Mark. Manag. 14 (6), 513–532. doi:10.1362/026725798784867716

Kingston, S. (2010). Integrating environmental protection and EU competition law: Why competition isn't special. Eur. Law J. 16 (6), 780–805. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0386.2010.00533.x

Klöpfer, M. (1996). Freedom and environmental protection as a constitutional problem. Interdiscip. Sci. Rev. 21 (4), 354–361. doi:10.1179/isr.1996.21.4.354

Korchani, B., and Sethom, K. (2021). “Real-time littering detection for smart city using deep learning algorithm,” in 2020 international conference on communications, signal processing, and their applications (ICCSPA) ( IEEE ), 1–5.

Laroche, M., Bergeron, J., and Barbaro-Forleo, G. (2001). Targeting consumers who are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products. J. consumer Mark. 18, 503–520. doi:10.1108/eum0000000006155

Lenzen, M., and Murray, S. A. (2003). The ecological footprint–issues and trends. ISA Res. Pap. 1 (3).

Lyndhurst, B. (2004). Bad habits and hard choices: In search of sustainable lifestyles . London, Brook .

Masron, T. A., and Subramaniam, Y. (2019). Does poverty cause environmental degradation? Evidence from developing countries. J. poverty 23 (1), 44–64. doi:10.1080/10875549.2018.1500969

Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., and Behrens, W. (1972). Limits to growth . New York: Universe Books .

Moseley, W. G. (2001). African evidence on the relation of poverty, time preference and the environment. Ecol. Econ. 38 (3), 317–326. doi:10.1016/s0921-8009(01)00184-7

Nekmahmud, M., Ramkissoon, H., and Fekete-Farkas, M. (2022). Green purchase and sustainable consumption: A comparative study between European and non-European tourists. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 43, 100980. doi:10.1016/j.tmp.2022.100980

Nikolaou, I. E., Jones, N., and Stefanakis, A. (2021). Circular economy and sustainability: The past, the present and the future directions. Circular Econ. Sustain. 1 (1), 1–20. doi:10.1007/s43615-021-00030-3

Nikolaou, I. E., Kourouklaris, G., and Tsalis, T. A. (2014). A framework to assist the financial community in incorporating water risks into their investment decisions. J. Sustain. Finance Invest. 4 (2), 93–109. doi:10.1080/20430795.2013.823853

Noguera, J. M., Segura, R. J., Ogáyar, C. J., and Joan-Arinyo, R. (2011). Navigating large terrains using commodity mobile devices. Comput. geosciences 37 (9), 1218–1233. doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2010.08.007

Omer, S. (2012). The concepts of God, man, and the environment in Islam: Implications for Islamic architecture. J. Islamic Archit. 2 (1). doi:10.18860/jia.v2i1.1778

Osofsky, H. M. (2005). Learning from environmental justice: A new model for international environmental rights. Stan. Envtl. LJ 24, 71.

Panayotou, T. (2016). Economic growth and the environment. Environ. Anthropol. 24, 140–148.

Peattie, K. (2010). Green consumption: Behavior and norms. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 35, 195–228. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-032609-094328

Porket, J. L. (2003). The pros and cons of government regulation. Econ. Aff. 23 (4), 48–54. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0270.2003.00444.x

Porter, M. E., and Van der Linde, C. (2000). 2. Green and competitive: Ending the. The dynamics of the eco-efficient economy: Environmental regulation and competitive advantage , 33.

Porter, M. E., and Van der Linde, C. (1995). Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. J. Econ. Perspect. 9 (4), 97–118. doi:10.1257/jep.9.4.97

Ramanathan, R., Black, A., Nath, P., and Muyldermans, L. (2010). Impact of environmental regulations on innovation and performance in the UK industrial sector. Manag. Decis. 48, 1493–1513. doi:10.1108/00251741011090298

Rassier, D. G., and Earnhart, D. (2010). The effect of clean water regulation on profitability: Testing the Porter hypothesis. Land Econ. 86 (2), 329–344. doi:10.3368/le.86.2.329

Rennings, K., and Rammer, C. (2011). The impact of regulation-driven environmental innovation on innovation success and firm performance. Industry Innovation 18 (03), 255–283. doi:10.1080/13662716.2011.561027

Robinson, R., and Smith, C. (2002). Psychosocial and demographic variables associated with consumer intention to purchase sustainably produced foods as defined by the Midwest Food Alliance. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 34 (6), 316–325. doi:10.1016/s1499-4046(06)60114-0

Roshani, P. C., and Rathnasiri, H. C. (2018). Religiosity and environmentally concerned consumer behaviour:‘becoming one with God (nature)' through surrendering environmental identities. Int. J. Consumer Stud. 42 (6), 627–638. doi:10.1111/ijcs.12469

Sarkodie, S. A., and Strezov, V. (2019). A review on environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis using bibliometric and meta-analysis. Sci. total Environ. 649, 128–145. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.276

Sarkodie, S. A., Strezov, V., Weldekidan, H., Asamoah, E. F., Owusu, P. A., and Doyi, I. N. Y. (2019). Environmental sustainability assessment using dynamic autoregressive-distributed lag simulations—Nexus between greenhouse gas emissions, biomass energy, food and economic growth. Sci. total Environ. 668, 318–332. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.432

Shahbaz, M., Ozturk, I., Afza, T., and Ali, A. (2013). Revisiting the environmental Kuznets curve in a global economy. Renew. Sustain. energy Rev. 25, 494–502. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2013.05.021

Sharma, N., Saqib, M., Scully-Power, P., and Blumenstein, M. (2022). “SharkSpotter: Shark detection with drones for human safety and environmental protection,” in Humanity driven AI (Cham: Springer ), 223–237.

Shelton, D. (2012). “Resolving conflicts between human rights and environmental protection: Is there a hierarchy?,” in Hierarchy in international law: The place of human rights , 181–194.

Shen, M., and Wang, J. (2022). The impact of pro-environmental awareness components on green consumption behavior: The moderation effect of consumer perceived cost, policy incentives, and face culture. Front. Psychol. 13, 580823. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.580823

Sherkat, D. E., and Ellison, C. G. (2007). Structuring the religion-environment connection: Identifying religious influences on environmental concern and activism. J. Sci. study Relig. 46 (1), 71–85. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2007.00341.x

Simons, G., and Westerlund, D. (2016). Religion, politics and nation-building in post-communist countries . Routledge .

Sinha, A., Sengupta, T., and Alvarado, R. (2020). Interplay between technological innovation and environmental quality: Formulating the SDG policies for next 11 economies. J. Clean. Prod. 242, 118549. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118549

Smith, M., and Crotty, J. (2008). Environmental regulation and innovation driving ecological design in the UK automotive industry. Bus. strategy Environ. 17 (6), 341–349. doi:10.1002/bse.550

Solow, R. M. (1974). Intergenerational equity and exhaustible resources' review of economic studies, symposium on the economics of exhaustible resources . Edinburgh: Longman .

Stern, D. I. (2017). The environmental Kuznets curve after 25 years. J. Bioeconomics 19 (1), 7–28. doi:10.1007/s10818-017-9243-1

Stiglitz, J. E. (1974). Growth with exhaustible natural resources: Efficient and optimal growth paths' review of economic studies, symposium on the economics of exhaustible resources . Edinburgh: Longman .

Stipanicev, D., Bodrozic, L., and Stula, M. (2007). “Environmental intelligence based on advanced sensor networks,” in 2007 14th international workshop on systems, signals and image processing and 6th EURASIP conference focused on speech and image processing, multimedia communications and services ( IEEE ), 209–212.

Trevlopoulos, N. S., Tsalis, T. A., Evangelinos, K. I., Tsagarakis, K. P., Vatalis, K. I., and Nikolaou, I. E. (2021). The influence of environmental regulations on business innovation, intellectual capital, environmental and economic performance. Environ. Syst. Decis. 41 (1), 163–178. doi:10.1007/s10669-021-09802-6

United Nations Brundtland Commission (1987). Report of the World commission on environment and development: Our common future . http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf (Accessed 5 3, 2023).

Walia, S. B., Kumar, H., and Negi, N. (2020). Impact of socio-demographics on consumers' attitude and purchase intention towards 'eco-friendly'products. Int. J. Technol. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 19 (3), 361–371. doi:10.1386/tmsd_00031_1

Wang, J., Shen, M., and Chu, M. (2021). Why is green consumption easier said than done? Exploring the green consumption attitude-intention gap in China with behavioral reasoning theory. Clean. Responsible Consum. 2, 100015. doi:10.1016/j.clrc.2021.100015

Wang, L., Zhang, G., Shi, P., Lu, X., and Song, F. (2019a). Influence of awe on green consumption: The mediating effect of psychological ownership. Front. Psychol. 10, 2484. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02484

Wang, Y., Li, Y., Zhang, J., and Su, X. (2019b). How impacting factors affect Chinese green purchasing behavior based on Fuzzy Cognitive Maps. J. Clean. Prod. 240, 118199. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118199

WVS (2020). World Values Survey, Fieldwork and Sampling. Available at: https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSContents.jsp?CMSID=FieldworkSampling&CMSID=FieldworkSampling (Accessed November 11, 2021).

Yang, X., Lou, F., Sun, M., Wang, R., and Wang, Y. (2017). Study of the relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and the economic growth of Russia based on the Environmental Kuznets Curve. Appl. Energy 193, 162–173. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.02.034

Yesil, B. (2006). Watching ourselves: Video surveillance, urban space and self-responsibilization. Cult. Stud. 20 (4-5), 400–416. doi:10.1080/09502380600708770

Zhang, Q., Yu, Z., and Kong, D. (2019). The real effect of legal institutions: Environmental courts and firm environmental protection expenditure. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 98, 102254. doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2019.102254

Keywords: environment protection, economic growth, preferences, survey, environmental kuznets curve, post-soviet countries

Citation: Čábelková I, Smutka L, Mareš D, Ortikov A and Kontsevaya S (2023) Environmental protection or economic growth? The effects of preferences for individual freedoms. Front. Environ. Sci. 11:1129236. doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2023.1129236

Received: 21 December 2022; Accepted: 09 May 2023; Published: 22 May 2023.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2023 Čábelková, Smutka, Mareš, Ortikov and Kontsevaya. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Inna Čábelková, [email protected]

• Chronicle Conversations
• Article archives
• Issue archives

Fostering Peace and Sustainable Development

About the author, lamberto zannier.

April 2015, No. 4 Vol. LII, Implementing the 2030 Agenda: The Challenge of Conflict

T he 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 25 September 2015, recognizes not only that peace and security are prerequisites for achieving sustainable development, but that sustainable development provides the pathway to peaceful societies.

This new peace-centred agenda is inclusive and ambitious and could usher in a new spirit of global solidarity. With its five pillars of peace, people, planet, prosperity and partnerships, it opens a new era of development. Translating its 17 goals and 169 targets into concrete action on the ground will only be possible with the support and engagement of all major stakeholders, including Governments, civil society, business, academia, parliaments, and international organizations. As the world's largest regional security organization under Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) is ready to do its part to contribute to this critical global effort.

The OSCE comprehensive concept of security, which embraces politico-military aspects, the economy and the environment, as well as human rights and democracy, is fully compatible with the 2030 Agenda. Indeed, already in 1975, the organization's founding document, the Helsinki Final Act, recognized key economic, social and environmental issues that are fundamental to sustainable development as we understand it today. In the decades since then, the OSCE participating States reached consensus on a number of other relevant political commitments, including the 2003 Maastricht Strategy Document for the Economic and Environmental Dimension which puts a strong focus on sustainable development and defines specific actions and areas for cooperation. These are among the key building blocks of the OSCE efforts to support the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

The 2030 Agenda's focus on "peace, is not a coincidence and comes at a critical time for global and regional security. In the OSCE region, armed conflict is once again a reality and divisions are growing, undermining the very foundations of both regional and international security. A range of new transnational and global threats, that are also addressed in the 2030 Agenda, further aggravate these security challenges.

The OSCE is first and foremost a security organization. Its comprehensive security concept and its broad membership of 57 participating States provide a solid basis for promoting sustainable development. Since the 2030 Agenda reinforces the close relationship between peace, security and development, the foremost contribution of the OSCE to its implementation is likely to be through its engagement in all stages of the conflict cycle, from early warning and conflict prevention, through crisis management, conflict resolution and post-conflict rehabilitation. Through its network of field operations in more than a dozen countries and the activities of its secretariat, institutions and Parliamentary Assembly, the OSCE is actively involved in fostering security at multiple levels. Its field operations stand out in particular. Not only do they provide long­term support for reform efforts, but also help keep the finger on the pulse in specific settings by offering early warning and support for possible early action in the emergence of a crisis, monitoring implementation of conflict resolution measures, or assisting countries with post-conflict rehabilitation and the reconciliation efforts. At the same time, OSCE support for confidence- and security-building measures through arms control, military transparency and dialogue is equally important for stability and sustainable development.

Ensuring lasting peace, prosperity and stability for more than a billion people in North America, Europe and Asia is a major OSCE objective. The organization's support for strengthening democratic institutions, promoting the rule of law and protecting human rights helps to nurture sustainable development. These efforts are reinforced by the active involvement of members of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly who, as parliamentarians, feature among the major stakeholders defined by the 2030 Agenda. The OSCE has also developed specific tools and programmes tailored to help governments address the root causes of intolerance and discrimination and will continue to promote inclusive societies, tolerance for diversity and integration. Recognizing the crucial importance of the free flow of information in maintaining peace, advancing democracy and ensuring sustainable development, the OSCE will continue its support for free and pluralistic media in all of its participating States.

Achieving gender equality and empowering women form a cornerstone of the OSCE security approach, which protects and promotes the human rights and dignity of women and men and advocates for women's full and equal participation in society both in peacetime and in times of conflict. OSCE activities to empower women and girls, to ensure their full and effective participation in political, economic and public life and to eliminate all forms of violence against them are fully compliant with the 2030 Agenda.

The global migration challenge can be met only by developing cooperative, rights-based approaches to ensure that migration can continue to act as a powerful catalyst for development. Efficient migration policy frameworks, including at the regional level, are a key ingredient for facilitating safe and responsible migration and mobility of people. The OSCE will continue to offer an inclusive platform for dialogue and provide expertise for facilitating integration of migrants and refugees, effective management of labour migration, and enhancing freedom of movement, which can benefit sustainable development.

The OSCE recognizes the two-way relationship between the environment and security-environmental challenges as a potential source of conflict, and environmental cooperation as a tool for conflict prevention and confidence-building. It will continue to contribute to international discussions on environmental issues from a security perspective and aim at transforming environmental risks into opportunities for cooperation, with a focus on the following thematic areas:

• Water is a cross-cutting issue for sustainable development and also an indispensable aspect of the OSCE comprehensive approach to security. The organization supports its participating States in jointly managing water resources and promotes good water governance through projects on the regional, national and local levels. It will continue to make full use of the potential offered by water diplomacy to increase security and stability in its region.  
• Natural and man-made disasters represent another difficult challenge to both security and sustainable development. The OSCE will continue its support for disaster risk reduction mainly through awareness-raising and capacity strengthening within and across borders. The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 will be an important reference in this endeavour.
• The 2030 Agenda calls for urgent action to combat climate change. In the course of discussions at an October 2015 OSCE Security Days event dedicated to climate change and security it was concluded that the compound risks posed by climate change require a multidimensional response. According to some experts, climate change is no longer a mere "threat multiplier" for security, but a "threat catalyst". However, cooperation in addressing climate change and climate diplomacy is also a good entry point for preventing conflict situations and strengthening trust. Building on the global political momentum generated by the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change, the OSCE will continue to analyse and raise awareness of the security implications of climate change, identify geographical hotspots, and assist its participating States in developing and implementing adaptation strategies, particularly in transboundary contexts.
• Environmentally sound management of hazardous waste and toxic chemicals and prevention of their illegal transportation across borders are also areas where the OSCE offers extensive experience in assisting its participating States. This expertise, along with initiatives for increasing resource efficiency, can contribute to ensuring sustainable consumption and production patterns.
• The OSCE also promotes environmental good governance. The OSCE-supported network of Aarhus Centres, which now includes 60 Centres in 14 of the organization's participating States, contributes to peace, democracy and sustainable development by promoting and enhancing access to information, public participation and access to justice, as well as transparency and accountability.
• The OSCE offers a platform for energy security dialogue, cooperation, exchange of information and sharing of best practices on sustainable and renewable energy and energy efficiency. By bringing together major energy­ producing, transit and consuming countries, it will continue to play a significant role in the development of a sustainable approach towards energy security.

Good economic governance, the rule of law and equitable economic development are the prerequisites for peaceful and prosperous communities and nations. The OSCE activities in promoting international economic cooperation, enhancing the climate for business and investment, streamlining regulatory frameworks and countering corruption, money laundering and terrorism financing will contribute to implementing the 2030 Agenda.

International trade and transport also play a vital role in regional economic development. Procedural impediments and “red tape” at border crossings all too often hamper international trade and foreign investment, creating high costs for trade transactions and delays in the cross­border movement of goods. The organization will continue to assist its participating States in developing more efficient border, transport and customs policies, while at the same time maintaining high security standards.

PARTNERSHIPS

The inclusive dialogue and cooperation of the OSCE extend beyond the borders of its 57 participating States. Close relations with 11 partner countries in the Southern Mediterranean and Asia allow the OSCE to share best practices on many issues affecting the security of both the OSCE area and neighbouring regions.

The OSCE is joining efforts first and foremost with the United Nations, but also with many other international and regional organizations to develop and implement effective responses to traditional and emerging challenges. The Environment and Security Initiative is a concrete example of this approach. This long-standing partnership between the OSCE and the United Nations Development Programme, the United Nations Environment Programme, the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, and the Regional Environmental Centre for Central and Eastern Europe enables coordinated environmental action in support of the 2030 Agenda. While there are many other examples of OSCE partnerships in different spheres of sustainable development, there is still great potential to enhance collaboration with international financial institutions, the private sector and civil society to forge the strong coalition needed to implement the visionary but challenging 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

COOPERATION IS KEY

As transnational and global challenges become increasingly complex and intertwined, they pose a growing threat to sustainable development that no single country can tackle alone. This is a key reason why regional organizations such as the OSCE have an important role to play in supporting the 2030 Agenda. The OSCE will continue to serve as an inclusive platform for dialogue and cooperation on security issues with a direct impact on development, providing a strong link between security in the OSCE region and global security. Yet closer coordination between international and regional organizations, governments and civil society, and all other relevant stakeholders is also needed to create new synergies, while ensuring an effective division of labour and efficient use of resources. Only by working together will we succeed in bringing peace and prosperity to people in every corner of our planet. 

The UN Chronicle  is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.

Central Emergency Response Fund’s Climate Action Account: Supporting People and Communities Facing the Climate Crisis

While the climate crisis looms large, there is reason for hope: the launch of the climate action account of the Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) fills a critical gap in the mosaic of climate financing arrangements.

Applying the Law of the Sea to Protect International Shipping

In past decades, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) has worked successfully with Member States and the shipping industry to combat and reduce incidents of piracy and armed robbery, including through building the capacity of countries in the relevant regions to enhance their maritime domain awareness, information-sharing and collaboration.

Multilingual Education: A Key to Quality and Inclusive Learning

The potential of multilingual education is enormous, but realizing its full benefits requires a commitment to lifelong learning and a deeper appreciation of the value of linguistic diversity.

Documents and publications

• Yearbook of the United Nations 
• Basic Facts About the United Nations
• Journal of the United Nations
• Meetings Coverage and Press Releases
• United Nations Official Document System (ODS)
• Africa Renewal

Libraries and Archives

• Dag Hammarskjöld Library
• UN Audiovisual Library
• UN Archives and Records Management 
• Audiovisual Library of International Law
• UN iLibrary 

News and media

• UN News Centre 
• UN Chronicle on Twitter
• UN Chronicle on Facebook

The UN at Work

• 17 Goals to Transform Our World
• Official observances
• United Nations Academic Impact (UNAI)
• Protecting Human Rights
• Maintaining International Peace and Security
• The Office of the Secretary-General’s Envoy on Youth
• United Nations Careers

Does green tax theory affect the environmental sustainability and protection?

• Published: 08 March 2024

Cite this article

• Muhammad Naveed Ahmad 1 ,
• Xiaoguang Zhou 1 ,
• Sagheer Muhammad 1 , 3 &
• Malik Shahzad Shabbir 1 , 2  

83 Accesses

Explore all metrics

In emerging nations, green tax benefits pertaining to environmental sustainability, such as taxable tax income adjustments and the ITC (investment tax credit), are gaining popularity. On the other hand, implementing green tax incentives that address climate change in achieving the growth goals for sustainability measures. This research uses environment, social and governance (ESG) scores to construct our dependent variable. To determine which firms and how long the sample observations alter, this study employs a longitudinal research methodology. Probit and logistic regression are then used to determine who will benefit from the tax incentives. It has been noted that a company's more sustainable production methods are reflected in its higher ESG score. For this reason, our analysis employs dummy 1 for companies at the top of the ESG ranking and 0 otherwise.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Source: Authors’ own calculation

Similar content being viewed by others

Environmental-, social-, and governance-related factors for business investment and sustainability: a scientometric review of global trends

Hadiqa Ahmad, Muhammad Yaqub & Seung Hwan Lee

The Influence of Firm Size on the ESG Score: Corporate Sustainability Ratings Under Review

Samuel Drempetic, Christian Klein & Bernhard Zwergel

The costs and benefits of environmental sustainability

Paul Ekins & Dimitri Zenghelis

Availability of data and materials

The data is available on request from corresponding author.

Acemoglu, D., Aghion, P., & Hémous, D. (2014). The environment and directed technical change in a North-South model. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 30 (3), 513–530.

Article   Google Scholar  

Andersson, J. J. (2019). Carbon taxes and CO 2 emissions: Sweden as a case study. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 11 (4), 1–30.

Google Scholar  

Bhatti, F. A., Aslam, E., ur Rehman, A., Ashraf, S., Aslam, M., & Shabbir, M. S. (2023). Does intellectual capital efficiency spur the financial performance of banks? A comparative analysis of Islamic and conventional banks in Pakistan. Al-Qanṭara, 9 (3), 55–67.

Cao, X., Kannaiah, D., Ye, L., Khan, J., Shabbir, M. S., Bilal, K., & Tabash, M. I. (2022). Does sustainable environmental agenda matter in the era of globalization? The relationship among financial development, energy consumption, and sustainable environmental-economic growth.  Environmental Science and Pollution Research , 1–11.

Dahlberg, L., & Wiklund, F. (2018). ESG Investing In Nordic Countries: An analysis of the Shareholder view of creating value.

Erhart, S. (2018). Exchange-traded green bonds. Journal of Environmental Investing, 1–41.

Fang, G., Yang, K., Tian, L., & Ma, Y. (2022). Can environmental tax promote renewable energy consumption? An empirical study from the typical countries along the Belt and Road. Energy, 260 , 125193.

Fareed, Z., Rehman, M. A., Adebayo, T. S., Wang, Y., Ahmad, M., & Shahzad, F. (2022). Financial inclusion and the environmental deterioration in Eurozone: The moderating role of innovation activity. Technology in Society, 69 , 101961.

Irfan, M., Rehman, M. A., Razzaq, A., & Hao, Y. (2023). What derives renewable energy transition in G-7 and E-7 countries? The role of financial development and mineral markets. Energy Economics, 121 , 106661.

Jaffe, A. B., & Palmer, K. (1997). Environmental regulation and innovation: A panel data study. Review of Economics and Statistics, 79 (4), 610–619.

Jagers, S. C., & Hammar, H. (2009). Environmental taxation for good and for bad: The efficiency and legitimacy of Sweden’s carbon tax. Environmental Politics, 18 (2), 218–237.

Jin, C., Tsai, F. S., Gu, Q., & Wu, B. (2022). Does the porter hypothesis work well in the emission trading schema pilot? Exploring moderating effects of institutional settings. Research in International Business and Finance, 62 , 101732.

Lanoie, P., Patry, M., & Lajeunesse, R. (2008). Environmental regulation and productivity: Testing the porter hypothesis. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 30 , 121–128.

Liu, C., Ni, C., Sharma, P., Jain, V., Chawla, C., Shabbir, M. S., & Tabash, M. I. (2022). Does green environmental innovation really matter for carbon-free economy? Nexus among green technological innovation, green international trade, and green power generation.  Environmental Science and Pollution Research , 1–9.

Liang, X., Zhang, Y., Tan, J., Chen, H., & Shabbir, M. S. (2023). The dynamic relationship between multidimensional energy poverty and social wellbeing’s. Social Indicators Research, 1–14.

Liu, Y., & Mao, J. (2019). How do tax incentives affect investment and productivity? Firm-level evidence from China. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 11 (3), 261–291.

CAS   Google Scholar  

Mao, J., & Wang, C. (2016). Tax incentives and environmental protection: Evidence from China’s taxpayer-level data. China Finance and Economic Review, 4 (1), 1–30.

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Mughal, N., Zafar, S. Z., Rawoof, H. A., Maria, S. C., Zhilin, Q., Magdalena, R., & Shabbir, M. S. (2023). The dynamic effects of socioeconomic factors on different crime levels: Evidence from south asian countries. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 1–14.

Milne, J. E. (2003). Environmental taxation: Why theory matters. Critical Issues in Environmental Taxation, 1 , 3–26.

Milne, J. E. (2007). Green taxes and climate change: Theory and reality. Cesifo DICE Report, 5 (4), 8–12.

Rawoof, H. A., Said, L. R., Irmak, E., Pelit, I., & Malik, S. S. (2023). The dynamic effects of foreign direct investment services and energy consumption on information and communication technology sector. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 13 (5), 553.

Rehman, M. A., Sabir, S. A., Bukhari, A. A. A., & Sharif, A. (2023). Do globalization and human capital an opportunity or threat to environmental sustainability? Evidence from emerging countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 418 , 138028.

Shabbir, M. S., Said, L. R., Pelit, I., & Irmak, E. (2023). The dynamic relationship among domestic stock returns volatility, oil prices, exchange rate and macroeconomic factors of investment. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 13 (3), 560–565.

Ulucak, R. (2020). How do environmental technologies affect green growth? Evidence from BRICS economies. Science of the Total Environment, 712 , 136504.

Article   ADS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Ur Rehman, A., Aslam, E., Muhammad, R. S., Aslam, M., Iqbal, A., & Shabbir, M. S. (2023). Consumer awareness and knowledge about Takaful (Islamic Insurance): A survey of Pakistan. Journal of Namibian Studies: History Politics Culture, 35 , 4101–4118.

Wang, J., Ramzan, M., Makin, F., Mahmood, C. K., Ramos-Meza, C. S., Jain, V., & Shabbir, M. S. (2023). Does clean energy matter? The dynamic effects of different strategies of renewable energy, carbon emissions, and trade openness on sustainable economic growth.  Environment, Development and Sustainability , 1–10.

Xue, M., Mihai, D., Brutu, M., Popescu, L., Sinisi, C. I., Bansal, A., & Shabbir, M. S. (2024). Examining the impact of energy policies on CO2 emissions with information and communication technologies and renewable energy. Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics & Econometrics . https://doi.org/10.1515/snde-2022-0065

Yan, X., Abdalla, A. A., Zhu, G., Uslu, Y. D., Mohamed, M. A. A., Muhammad, T., & Shabbir, M. S. (2024). Does natural resources matter? Nexus among renewable energy policies, technological innovation, environmental protection, and economic growth. Energy Strategy Reviews, 51 , 101272.

Download references

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [Grant Number: 71771023].

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Economics and Management, University of Science and Technology Beijing, Haidian District, 30 Xueyuan Road, Beijing, 100083, China

Muhammad Naveed Ahmad, Xiaoguang Zhou, Sagheer Muhammad & Malik Shahzad Shabbir

Department of Management Sciences, ILMA University of Karachi, Karachi, Pakistan

Malik Shahzad Shabbir

Department of Management Sciences, University of Gujrat, Gujrat, Pakistan

Sagheer Muhammad

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiaoguang Zhou .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors have declared no potential conflicts of interest concerning the research, and publication of this article.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Ahmad, M.N., Zhou, X., Muhammad, S. et al. Does green tax theory affect the environmental sustainability and protection?. Environ Dev Sustain (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-04601-w

Download citation

Received : 20 January 2023

Accepted : 02 February 2024

Published : 08 March 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-04601-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Green tax incentives
• Sustainable production
• Green environment
• Environmental protection

JEL Classification

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Bhutan: Climate Resilience, Natural Capital and Quality Jobs Key to Sustainable, Inclusive Growth

THIMPHU, March 12, 2024 —In the past two decades, Bhutan has achieved significant economic and development progress, while preserving its unique natural heritage. In the face of emerging development challenges and increasing climate change risks, it will be critical for the country to enhance climate resilience, diversify economic activities, and create quality jobs in the private sector to maintain green and inclusive growth, say two new World Bank reports launched today.

The Bhutan Country Environmental Analysis: Taking the Green Growth Agenda Forward  examined Bhutan's development trajectory and explored opportunities to ensure sustainable and green growth. Bhutan is the world's first carbon-negative country and is known as a global leader in forest and biodiversity conservation, with 70% of its area covered by forests.

“Bhutan has proved to the world that economic growth is possible without hampering the environment. Bhutan is among the countries with the largest share of renewable natural capital per capita in the world ,” said  Abdoulaye Seck, Country Director for Bhutan and Bangladesh. “ To support its development needs, the country can mobilize additional resources by exploring opportunities to monetize emission offsets through voluntary carbon markets and enabling policies for private green investments.”

The country is highly vulnerable to climate change. One of its most challenging climate risks is hydrological, making its most important economic sectors—hydropower and agriculture—vulnerable to climate impacts. While hydropower has kept Bhutan’s emissions and sustainability agenda on track, high dependence on this sector leaves Bhutan’s economy vulnerable. It also faces other emerging environmental challenges resulting from urbanization, pollution, and waste management.

Bhutan's forests, protected areas, agricultural lands, energy and minerals – it’s “natural capital”, when sustainably harnessed, can support economic diversification and resilience, which in turn will help fast track recovery from COVID-19 and ensure sustainable growth.

The Bhutan Labor Market Assessment  highlights that the country needs more and better jobs in the private sector to absorb the growing educated workforce in urban areas, while ensuring that access to productive jobs is inclusive. Currently, quality jobs are mostly concentrated in the public sector and mostly employ men and high-skilled workers. Women, low-skilled, and rural workers are mostly employed in low-productivity agricultural jobs as self-employed or family workers, with limited options for upward mobility.

Outside of the public sector, employment quality in nonagricultural sectors remains poor. Overwork—defined as working more than 48 hours a week—is prevalent and affects 63 percent of the workforce. One out of three salaried employees have no written contract from their employer. Due to a lack of attractive options, unemployment among educated workers has steadily increased since 2019. In addition, the average number of migrating Bhutanese workers has increased to more than 5,000 a month in early 2023, compared with less than 500, on average, one month before the pandemic.

On the other hand, private sector firms face labor shortages and limited linkages between employers and training institutes, which affects their growth and productivity.

“Tackling labor market reforms is critical as Bhutan approaches the threshold for upper-middle-income status. The country can adopt policies to create quality jobs in promising sectors, while adopting reforms across the entire economy to improve conditions for firms to grow and boost human capital accumulation,”  added  Seck .

This site uses cookies to optimize functionality and give you the best possible experience. If you continue to navigate this website beyond this page, cookies will be placed on your browser. To learn more about cookies, click here .

Water Documenters: Read meeting notes from the Great Salt Lake Advisory Council

In the march 13 meeting, the council appointed a new chair and discussed the need to collaborate with other states on management of the bear river..

Water Documenters Logo

Purpose of the council

“Advise on the sustainable use, protection, and development of the Great Salt Lake.”

Advises the governor, the Department of Natural Resources and the Department of Environmental Quality.

Responsible for balancing the sustainable use, environmental health, and reasonable access for existing and future development of the Great Salt Lake.

Agenda for March meeting

Members of the council: Who they represent (All appointed by UT Gov.)

Don Leonard: Former Chair & Aquaculture (Present)

Tim Hawkes: Current Chair & GSL Brine Shrimp Cooperative (Present)

Joe Havasi: Extractive Industry (Present)

Dina Blaes: Salt Lake County (Present)

Randy Elliott: Davis County (Not Present)

Gage Froerer: Weber County (Not Present)

David Livermore: Vice-Chair & Conservation (Present)

Leland Myers: Publicly Owned Treatment Works (Present)

Jeff Richards: Migratory Bird Protection Areas (Present)

Lee Perry: Box Elder County (Present)

Ryan Doherty: Tooele County (Present)

Thomas Ward: Municipal Government (Sandy City) (Not Present)

Persons scheduled to speak

Casey Snider, Utah House of Representatives (Present)

Tim Davis, Deputy Great Salt Lake Commissioner (Online)

Nathan Daugs, Cache Water District (Present)

Steve Jones, Hansen, Allen & Luce, Inc. (Present)

A large meeting room with large windows. There are two 360 degree cameras on a plastic table in the middle that are recording the entire meeting , while also streaming the meeting to persons attending virtually.

10:03: Meeting started with Don Leonard calling the meeting to order and stated that the meeting had a quorum present.

10:04: All persons present in the room stated their name and organization.

10:07: Leonard went over the status of each council member’s term. Tim Hawkes was confirmed by the Utah Senate, and will take over as chair with Leonard taking the place of his alternate.

10:10: David Livermore proposed a motion to “ratify the action of Governor Cox to appoint Tim Hawkes as the next chair of the Great Salt Lake Advisory Council.” The motion was seconded by Leland Myers and unanimously approved by the Council.

10:11: Livermore gave a short speech thanking Don Leonard for his service to the Great Salt Lake and the GSLAC, and proposed a resolution to honor him.

10:15: Don Leonard symbolically handed over the gavel to Tim Hawkes. Tim Hawkes thanked Don Leonard for his service and took over the meeting as the new chair.

(Marco Lozzi | University of Utah) Tim Hawkes, new chair of the Great Salt Lake Advisory Council, thanks Don Leonard for his service while sitting next to Leonard’s now empty chair during the GSL Advisory Council meeting in the Eccles Wildlife Center on Wednesday, Mar. 13, 2024.

10:17: Hawkes handed over the floor to Representative Casey Snider to talk about how the Great Salt Lake has been covered in the previous legislative session. Snider discussed the allocation of funding that was distributed relating to aiding the Great Salt Lake, including ten million dollars to the Great Salt Lake Commissioner’s Office . Snider talked about HB 453 , which covered regulation of mineral extraction in the GSL.

10:24: The floor is opened for questions. R. Jefre Hicks, Secretary/Treasurer of the Utah Airboat Association, asked about SB 211 , and how it aligns with the Commissioner Office’s plans for the GSL. Snider said that he does not foresee any conflict between the two.

10:32: Hawkes handed the floor to Tim Davis, deputy commissioner of the GSL. Davis gave an update on what the commissioner’s office is doing to protect the GSL. Davis said the four main goals of the Commissioner’s office right now are bringing people together, making decisions based upon the best available science, getting water to the [Great Salt] Lake, and protecting water/air quality. Davis talked about some of the organizations/divisions that they are working with, and studies that they are funding.

10:37: Hawkes thanked Davis for his time and listed some of Davis’ qualifications and past experience. Davis requested that the Commissioner’s office be able to provide updates at all future Great Salt Lake Advisory Council meetings, Hawkes approved. The floor was opened for questions, but none were raised.

10:38: Hawkes handed the floor to Nathan Daugs, manager of the Cache Water District, to give a presentation about the Regional Economic Values of the Bear River . Daugs discussed a study conducted by the Conservation Economics Institute and ECOnorthwest . Daugs stated that the Bear River is the “biggest contributor, flow wise, to the Great Salt Lake.” Daugs discussed a tri-state collaboration between Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming in order to more efficiently use the river’s water.

10:53: Hawkes thanked Daugs for his presentation and opened the floor to questions. David Livermore asked if there is “any corresponding interest amongst Idaho legislators to address depletion issues and similar things that could [not only] help the lake, but agriculture even in Idaho”. Daugs responded, saying “probably not”, as they are “not concerned with the Great Salt Lake.” Leland Myers asked how the Bear River’s contribution to the Great Salt Lake mineral companies was calculated, Daugs said it was based on the percentage of water the lake received from the Bear River in a study from 2012.

10:58: Hawkes handed the floor to Steven Jones to talk about the effects of Low Impact Development ( LID ) on the Great Salt Lake. Hansen, Allen & Luce ( HAL ) and LimnoTech were selected by the state to create a report on the impact of LID on the Great Salt Lake, detailed in HB 429 . Jones talked about the effect of LID in creating more water runoff for the GSL. Jones stated that non-low impact developments send more water into the Great Salt Lake faster, but reduces the amount of groundwater and requires water treatment as the water quality would be lower. Groundwater only accounted for 3% of water going into the Great Salt Lake.

11:09: Hawkes opened the floor to questions. David Livermore asked how groundwater was measured for the study. Jones said they used surface and groundwater modeling and stated that it is “not 100% perfect.” Dina Blaes asked what the most efficient use of LID is, and if it was being studied. Jones stated that the Division of Water Quality are the ones working on that.

11:17: Hawkes opened the floor to public comment. Lynn de Freitas, Executive Director of FRIENDS of Great Salt Lake , announced that FRIENDS of Great Salt Lake recognised Don Leonard as the recipient of the Friend of the Lake award. Lynn Lanier, Utah Department of Health and Human Services, talked about how he thinks public education will be more impactful than policy change.

11:26: Hawkes closed the floor to public comment. Hawkes asked the council if they had any suggestions for the next meeting. None were given. The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, July 10th, 2024 from 10:00am to 11:30 a.m. at the Eccles Wildlife Center.

11:28: The meeting is adjourned.

Don Leonard stepped down as Chair of the Great Salt Lake Advisory Council, with Tim Hawkes taking his place.

The Bear River is the largest contributor of water to the Great Salt Lake, and collaboration with Wyoming and Idaho is required to make efficient use of its water.

Runoff surface water and groundwater is a very small percentage of the Great Salt Lake’s water intake.

Follow-Up Questions

With Tim Hawkes taking over as the new Chair of the Great Salt Lake Advisory Council, will the council be run differently? Will old commitments and promises still be upheld?

Water Documenters is a collaboration between The Salt Lake Tribune and City Bureau and funded through grants from the Great Salt Lake Collaborative and the Rita Allen Foundation . College student journalists from all over Utah are hired to attend and take notes at public water meetings in Utah. These notes are then published for anyone to read or use. The project is aimed at providing better public access to meetings where major decisions are made about a limited Utah resource. For more meeting notes, click here. For more information, click here.

Donate to the newsroom now. The Salt Lake Tribune, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) public charity and contributions are tax deductible

Most Americans say religion’s influence is waning, and half think that’s bad

Bagley cartoon: profit imp, these utah counties have seen demand at food banks double. here’s how you can help., former utah state football analyst arrested in connection with death of girlfriend, unborn child, byu will require incoming students to read apostle jeffrey holland’s controversial ‘musket speech’, featured local savings.