Essay Example on Sustainable Advancement: Impact on Environment and Per Capita Income

The impact in regards to sustainable advancement in the environment has been broadly discussed in the economic literature. Various researches have examined the relationship between environmental damage and per capita income, on most occasions, by using the framework of the Kuznets curve that was introduced in the year 1955 by Kuznets known as the inverted-U-shaped curve (Ganju, Pavlou& Banker, 2015). This concept implies a U-shaped relationship concerning two variables suggesting a non-linear relationship which is applicable in various nations. The primary indicators applied to capture the changes in regards to environmental conditions have been established and used by various nations (Costanza, 2014, p. 283). A high rate of economic advancement has been the main and solid object of government and society, specifically in developing countries. The improvement in economic growth is related to an increase in the manufacture and also the consumption of goods and services (Pretty et al., 2016, p. 12). Further, the same may result in an increase in the multiplied products of the individuals and income per capita consumption.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Encouraging high rates of growth, various economies' techniques have involved development based on each nation's characteristic and also the potential natural resources which are available. The growth, however, might produce negative effects on the environment through various aspects, for example, environmental damage, overexploitation of natural resources, degradation and also loss of wildlife habitat, and lastly, climate change. All these issues are what a number of nations are dealing with; in particular, the decline in environmental quality is taken as a serious matter for the living condition of the population from the current as well as the long-term measure (Bekhet& Othman, 2011, p. 228). In order to succeed in establishing great development, GDP should not be used to measure the economic situation of a country. Instead, the sustainability in respect to natural resources and also environmental condition should be factored as primary aspects which can be used to prove that the benefit of economic growth is distributed across the population and environment.

More importantly, as far as the curve discussed above is a concern, it is clear that there is a clear relationship between economic growth and environmental pollution. Scholars suggest that environmental pollution is always at a peak at the initial stages of development. At the initial stages of development, it is said that there is a lot of exploitation, which in turn produces a lot of toxic materials to the environment, thus polluting the environment. It is assumed that when a nation is not engaged in development. The environment is not much disturbed by related developmental mechanisms, but when construction starts, even forests are cleared to give room for development (Marseille, et al., 2014, p. 118). Consequently, industrial activities which, as far as GDP is concerned, bring positive impacts, but in the end, lead to environmental pollutions as a result of poisonous emissions. Therefore, growth in GDP does not mean there is a positive impact on other aspects of life like individual welfare.

GDP Limitations as a Measure of Well-Being

Sustainability

In recent decades the notion that Gross Domestic Product growth is an unqualified product has come under fire in recent years. Previously used to gauge the effectiveness in regards to the US economy in the period of World War II, the theory has been widely considered as a universal gauge in regards to economic health and also progress (Frugoli et al., 2015, p. 373). Even though its relevance is broadly criticized, no other concept has yet achieved in overturning the GDP concept as a dominant gauge of progress.

In economics, researchers have decided to take a new observation at how six alternatives to Gross Domestic Product can establish more sustainable national trajectories (Ward et al., 2016, p. 2016). The areas covered by their analysis include all already developed measures like the Human development index utilized by UN Development Program and also Social Progress Index, as well as more measuring options such as sustainable society and happy planet index established by think tanks (Giannett et al., 2015, p. 14). The study analysis also involved two measures commonly known in academic circles, quality of life index, and also global wellbeing index that place a broader emphasis on education, freedom, trust, and even social life (Frugoli et al., 2015, p. 375). The above societal initiatives focus beyond the narrow confines as far as economic development is concerned.

The principal argument that disqualifies GDP as the primary determinant of sustainability is because the factors that constitute the GDP of a nation leave out individual considerations that keep the life of individuals moving. For example, GDP will measure the cost of protection of the environment, Medicare, and also education (Nahman, Mahumani& De Lange, 2016, p. 215). However, it fails to take into account the real degree of ecological sanitization, health, and education. Further, GDP will look at the expenses used to buy pollution-control tools, but it fails to account for the extent of the cleanliness of air and water. Consequently, GDP will account for what is spent on healthcare but fails to account for the extent to which life expectancy has improved or whether the mortality rate of infants has increased or decreased. Similarly, the same GDP will account for what is spent on education but fails to address the number of people directly in a population that can read or write.

Therefore, it can be concluded that GDP is more interested in things that bring economic benefits in a given society. Further, it can be said that the GDP of a nation is short of information regarding the social welfare of people of a particular nation (Nahman, Mahumani& De Lange, 2016, p. 216). The gauge that is to address wealth distribution, environmental cleanliness, and individual health of a person, among other aspects, are not considered when it comes to calculation of nations' GDP. In a nutshell, the sustainability of a nation's welfare cannot be reflected by the GDP of a given society since it has more to do than just issues to do with economics.

Climate Change

Economists point out that various issues that add value to individuals' wellbeing are mostly not bought and also sold. Therefore, GDP happens to be a limited mechanism that measures the living standards of individuals(Edeme, Nkalu, Azu&Nwachukwu, 2016, p. 134). In order to understand its drawbacks better, the following factors will be assessed to make it more understandable by various people since they are frequently left out when computing the GDP of a state (Marseille, et al., 2014, p. 118). One of the essential factors that can be used to gauge GDP in view of individual wellbeing, for example, GDP will consider a positive count of motor vehicles manufactured but fails to account for environmental damage that results due to the emissions from the cars manufactured (Ganju, Pavlou& Banker, 2015, p. 18).Consequently, GDP estimates for the building of new cities, but however, it fails to discount for the essential forests they replace (Liu, 2010, p. 50). In his famous election speech, Robert Kennedy stated that GDP computes everything in short; however, it fails to consider what makes life worthwhile.

Still on environmental damage, the computation of GDP needsto discount the effects of climate change before coming up with the overall GDP of a nation (Solow, 2014). The manufacturing of more goods contributes a lot to the economy's GDP irrespective of the damage it causes to the environment (Choi & Turk, 2011, p. 115). For example, in regards to the GDP of a nation like India, it is considered to be on a growth direction even though Delhi's winters are continuously filled with smog, and also Bengaluru's lakes are more prone to fires (Ganju, Pavlou& Banker, 2015, p. 19). Therefore, current economies need a better computation of welfare, which takes the externalities into account to get an actual reflection in regards to a country's development (Liu & Yang, 2012, p. 649). Widening the scope concerning assessment to factor externalities would help in establishing a policy focus in regards to addressing them.

The world economists point out that it is true that GDP may pose a good picture in regards to a nation's wealth, but it is also worthwhile to put in mind that the presumption that a country's total wealth is based on its GDP is not valid (Martin et al., 2012, p. 208). As discussed above, it is clear that GDP computations are mostly based on the strength of a nation's economy (Pretty et al., 2016, p. 12). However, when one focuses on factors that are mostly considered in measuring the GDP of a given state, he realizes that the negative impacts caused by economic factors are not taken into account. Climate change is mostly brought about by factors like emissions produced by industries, motor vehicles, etc. These emissions subsequently damage the ozone layer, which in turn causes global warming (Surova et al., 2018. p. 561). The effects of global warming are massive in that they bring about human suffering, thus reducing the quality of life.

The wellbeing of an individual mostly starts with the quality of life that individuals lead in a given society (Costanza, 2014, p. 283). But as seen above, it is true that despite a country's steady growth in terms of GDP, there is a possibility that citizens of that country are suffering due to the effects of climate change. For example, destruction of the environment may bring about illnesses which subsequently reduce the happiness of a given population, thus affecting their welfare negatively (Frugoli et al., 2015, p. 371). Again if, for example, you consider leisure time, which is also counted as a welfare factor which GDP does not recognize, you will realize that countries that don't give their workers enough leisure time have larger GDP than those that provide(Bekhet& Othman, 2011, p. 228). But that does that mean GDP boosts the welfare of people based on its size? According to economists, this is not to true. For example, in the US average worker works for more hours than German workers, but you will realize that the GDP will not factor in its calculations the extra hours spent on vacation by German workers. Therefore, when measuring the welfare of citizens of a given country, it is important to look beyond the GDP of that country.

Alternatives to Gross Domestic Product

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has over the years developed to be the standard measure in which the economic progress of any nation is based on. Borrowing its origin in the United States, where it was first used after the end of World War II, it has been the universal measure in which institutions and countries use to determine their economic health (Felice, 2016, p. 972).

Economists have, over recent years, criticized the use of GDP as the standard measure of the economic health of any given nation. Several other indexes have been developed to either complement the gross domestic product or as a viable alternative altogether (Osberg& Sharpe, 2001). Despite the concerns raised on its suitability and the promotion of other methodologies, it continues to be widely used. One of the main critiques on the use of GDP as the only methodology for the economic well-being of any nation is based on the fact that it addresses only one aspect of development, which is the financial aspect only (Hayden & Wilson, 2017, p.170). However, it is essential to note that there are other aspects such as social harm...