Plug Out Tune In

Alicia Drover, post secondary student at SFU and past president of the Kiwanis Educating Youth Club at Abbotsford Collegiate is an involved youth leader and environmentalist. This is her first contribution to Plug Out Tune In

Recently, I have heard a few people voice the opinion that protecting the environment is important, but that right now the economy should take precedence. On one hand, this opinion is an argument of values, of one version of prosperity over another. On the other hand, it appears to involve an assumption that investing in the natural environment does not contribute to economic growth or even that it hinders it. However, the economy represents the material wealth of a country or the management of that country’s resources. Perhaps the most important kind of resource is natural resources, for it is from these that every item of economic value is made. Natural resources, or the environment, are at the core of a nation’s wealth and therefore essential to any economy. Furthermore, they are essential for our prosperity as they provide our basic needs. The economy and the environment are not as opposed as they may seem.

How then, might it appear that efforts to conserve these essential basic resources are detrimental to human wealth? Economic growth is most often measured by the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The GDP is increased by consumer and government spending, investment by businesses, and the export of goods. Imports, on the other hand, decrease the GDP. While the GDP may be a useful indicator of economic activity, it gives an incomplete picture. The GDP does not specify whether the goods or services consumers and the government are buying are positive or negative for the nation; it only specifies that money is changing hands. For example, in the event of a disaster such as an earthquake or flood, the GDP will actually increase as the government throws money into disaster relief. A high GDP is supposed to indicate a good economy. However, no one would say that the disaster had caused the afflicted region had become more wealthy. Many resources are lost due to damage or consumed in the post-disaster response. People lose their farms, infrastructure and jobs, and therefore more material wealth is lost as the affected people are unable to go to work to produce their goods. The quality of life is poor and yet, because money is changing hands, the GDP is high. Perhaps the first mistake in estimating the cost of environmental protection is the use of an economic measurement that does not consider the quantity and quality of resources available.

The calculation for the GDP does not take natural resources, or natural capital, into account. However, just as capital is important to any business, natural capital is important for a country. Without the natural resources that provide for our basic needs, we would be in a precarious position. We’d be entirely dependent on other countries for essentials such as food and shelter. But it is not enough to think of resources only on a national scale. We must also consider what would happen if every country dismissed its environmental problems in favour of boosting the GDP. The world’s supply of natural resources is limited. If we were to lose them, we would lose the ability to survive. Another wonderful thing about natural capital is that, like money sitting in a savings account, it grows if you let it be for a while. If not over-harvested, a run of salmon will increase in numbers to a population that can sustain more people. A new forest, if given time and room to grow, will mature and expand, providing not only more raw materials for products but also trees to provide essential services such as oxygen production and nitrogen cycling in the soil, and a habitat for other wildlife.

Investing in the environment does not have to come at the cost of our economy. It is, in fact, essential to the economy. It simply is not recognized as such by the current measurement. Although resources not currently being used do not contribute to the GDP, our economic well-being depends on them. Smart economics should mean an effective allocation of resources, not just an increase in spending.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5YVXnnfS28

Filed under: Plug Out Tune In Tagged: | Alexandria Mitchell, alicia drover, christy clark, environment economy, harper, Plug Out Tune In, sfu