Untitled Document
Aside from the obvious benefits to humanity of
reducing poverty, how would promoting more economic equality around
the world benefit the environment?
Research has shown that environmental protection tends
to be of lower priority in countries with a wide disparity between rich and
poor. The inverse is also true: Countries with greater economic equality
assign a higher priority to safeguarding the environment. The main determining factor seems to be that
lower-income people tend to vote against spending tax dollars on what are
deemed costly or discretionary environmental projects. In countries with
less disparity between rich and poor, such as throughout Scandinavia,
environmental protection is assigned a higher priority and governments have
enacted more stringent regulations and policies accordingly. University of Rochester researchers Laura Marsiliani
and Thomas Renstrom reviewed hundreds of academic studies of linkages
between economic equality and environmental protection and found plenty of
evidence to suggest that “poorer individuals tend to prefer less
stringent environmental policy.” Previous research also supports
their hypothesis that greater income inequality causes lower environmental
taxes, regulation, and spending around the world.
On a related front, a team of McGill University
researchers uncovered a connection between growing economic inequality and
an increase in the number of plant and animal species threatened with
extinction. Dr. Greg Mikkelson of McGill’s School of Environment led
the study, which looked at income inequality and biodiversity loss on two
different scales: among 45 countries worldwide and among 45 U.S. states.
The researchers found that the same general trend is evident in both cases:
Societies with more unequal distribution of income experience greater
losses of biodiversity. Although there is often a trade-off between economic
growth and environmental quality, says Mikkelson, his study suggests that
there is also synergy between removal or reduction of poverty and greater
conservation of biological diversity. If the United States were to achieve
a level of income parity comparable, say, to Sweden’s, some 44
percent fewer plant and animal species in the United States would be in
danger of extinction. “Our study,” adds Mikkelson,
“suggests that if we can learn to share economic resources more
fairly with fellow members of our own species it may help us to share
ecological resources more fairly with other species.”
One group working to help the environment by bridging
the economic equality gap is the Poverty Reduction and Environmental
Management program at the Institute for Environmental Studies at
Holland’s Vrije Universiteit. Formulated by Dr. Pieter van Beukering
and Kim van der Leeuw, the program has lined up researchers in 16
developing nations to develop case studies showing how
sustainability-oriented natural-resource management can lead to economic
development for poorer people. The researchers hope that their work in the
field will help show policy-makers the way toward enlightened regulatory
practices that encourage both economic equality and environmental
protection.
For more information:
“Inequality, environmental protection and growth,” Laura
Marsiliani and Thomas Renstrom, ideas.repec.org/p/roc/wallis/wp35.html;
“More inequality means less biodiversity,” McGill Reporter,
www.mcgill.ca/reporter/39/17/inequality/; PREM Program,
www.prem-online.org.
Send questions to Earth Talk, care of E/The Environmental Magazine,
P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881 or e-mail earthtalk@emagazine.com.
This article appears in Aug 9-15, 2007.
