Is developing the economy contradicting to the protection of the environment?

Now more than ever it seems that climate change had become a diplomatic issue, that is forcing many
nations to reconsider much of their national policies, and attempt to make them more conservationist. Though
there is also this very heated debate that argues that conservationist policies are a huge risk to economic
development. In the past year the world has continuously debated the weather the economic development is
worth the environmental cost is brings. Donald Trump has even argued that the economic development towards
lower income families is worth the environmental cost, and this idea was expressed through his existing th US
from the Paris Climate Agreement. Though truthfully the development of the economy does not coincide with
the protection of the environment, as they are constantly juxtaposing, evidently human development, economic
growth, and economic policy reveal that.

Over the course of history human development, has proven to provide economic and social
development at the cost of the environment. One of the most pivotal years in human development would be the
industrial revolution that took place in the late 18th century to the mid 19th. During this time there was an
evident growth in industrial and factorial work, that allowed many nations to prospore, like the UK. The UK
saw an influx of economic and social development because they were able to generate large profits from their
industrial productions. Ecologist Eric Mclamb has stated that because of the industrial revolution, the world
economy transitioned to a fossil fuel based one. This had detrimental on the world, as fossil fuels are a leading
contributor to carbon emissions and are a large contributing factor to the climate change(McLand, 2011).
Though because of this change from an agricultural based economy to a fossil fuel one the world experienced
economic and social growth that allowed many governments to fund social programmes, and helped increase the
average income of the people in many western nations. And evidently lives of humans globally changed all over
the world. Because of the industrial revolution goods and services came easier to attain, and thus demands for
goods and services caused an increase in supply and production. Humans no longer demanded only the
necessities but also things they desired. Patty Patsy has reported that fast fashion has become a modern 21st
century problem where it has become a main contributor in pollution and carbon emissions(Perry 2018). What
both pieces of evidence reveal is how through economic development humans have come to demand more
goods as they have become more accessible and affordable to them. This led to an increase in supply production
that leads to more carbon emissions to be produced that contributed to climate change, and negatively impacts
the environment.

Secondly nations with high economic growth are also very much synonyms with being detrimental to the
environment. A way to measure economic growth would be through the GDP, which measures the economic
output in a country. More often than not the GDp reveals the state of the nation. High GDPs are synonyms with
a better living standard and higher incomes. The world bank had reported that some of the nations with the
highest GDPs like China, US, and many Gulf Arabian nations like Kuwait and the UAE have also reported to be
produced more than 25 metric tons of carbon emissions. Thus the nation's leading in economic development
have revealed themselves to be large carbon emissions and revealed themselves not to care much for
environmental conservation. As the production of fossil fuels and manufactured goods and services are very
profitable and the influx of money from those products allow the nation to provide high wages and social and
public services for many people. As Well in the past year many nations have had to face the reality of the
unsustainability for service economies. The US would be evidence of this. The US in the past year has come to
realize that tourist and education based economies are not functional and money lies in area more related to
fossil fuels and manufactured goods. Jennifer A Dougly has reported that Trump has been attempting to bring
coal back (Dougly, 2018). The reason for Trump's economical campaign to bring coal back despite its negative
impact on the environment, because the fossil fuel industry has been recognized to be extremely profitable as it
is a necessity and people no matter their circumstances need fossil fuels. Thus if a nation wants to increase its
GDP it needs to shift towards a more non service and non green kind of economy.

Lastly, Supply side policy, which is the economic policy which is heavily adapted by internationally,
proves to bring economic development at the cost of the environment. Supply side policy is defined as
government policies that are either able to lower costs of production and increase production in the short run or
able to increase the quality and/or quantity of the factors of production in the long run. More specifically
Market-based supply-side policies are policies that intend to increase the quality/quantity of the factors of
production by allowing market forces to operate more freely. This means that corporations are able to operate
more loosely as smaller government is emplaced. When government does not regulate corporations, they often
produce more, and neglect any environmental restrictions. A kind of restriction that would not exist in supply
side policy would be things like carbon tax, where corporations have to pay a tax based on their carbon
emissions. This tax profits would then be invested into environmental projects. Thus, as reported by the Michael
Ettlinger one of the failure of supply side policy is that it brings forth environmental destruction (Ettlinger,
2012). A corporations are not expected to be environmentally conscious or care of the social welfare but rather
their priorities rely on profits. This freedom does generate large profits that corporations are able to put back
into the nation's economy and wages of the people but it does cost the government the ability to monitor and
control the environmental damage being done at the cost of progress.

To conclude economic development is quite juxtaposing to the conservatism and environmental care.
This would be heavily demonstrated in humans reaction to economic development, the cost of economic growth,
and the enabling of supply side policy. Though luckily within the 21st century a new school of thought has been
produced which looks at sustainably managing the economy and hopefully one day nations will opt for this
rather than the destruction of the environment.

Citations

A Dlouhy, J. (2018). Trump Promised to Bring Back Coal. It’s Declining Again. [online] Bloomberg.com.
Available at: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-21/trump-promised-to-bring-back-coal-it-s-
declining-again [Accessed 7 Aug. 2019].

Ettlinger, M. (2019). The Failure of Supply-Side Economics - Center for American Progress. [online] Center for
American Progress. Available at: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2012/08/01/11998/
the-failure-of-supply-side-economics/ [Accessed 7 Aug. 2019].

McLamb, E. (2011). Impact of the Industrial Revolution. [online] Ecology Global Network. Available at:
https://www.ecology.com/2011/09/18/ecological-impact-industrial-revolution/ [Accessed 7 Aug. 2019].

Perry, P. (2018). The environmental costs of fast fashion. [online] The Independent. Available at:
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/fashion/environment-costs-fast-fashion-pollution-waste-sustainability-
a8139386.html [Accessed 7 Aug. 2019].
Worldbank.org. (2019). Worldbank Search. [online] Available at: https://www.worldbank.org/en/search?
q=carbon+emssions+&currentTab=1 [Accessed 7 Aug. 2019].