{"id":64439,"date":"2026-06-24T17:21:02","date_gmt":"2026-06-24T21:21:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.rightwinggranny.com\/?p=64439"},"modified":"2026-06-24T17:21:02","modified_gmt":"2026-06-24T21:21:02","slug":"capitalism-and-environmentalism-can-co-exist","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.rightwinggranny.com\/?p=64439","title":{"rendered":"Capitalism And Environmentalism Can Co-exist"},"content":{"rendered":"

On June 16th, The Daily Economy<\/a> posted an article about the belief that economic growth and environmental protection exist in direct tension. The evidence shows otherwise.<\/p>\n

The article reports:<\/p>\n

In recent work with Justin Callais and Alicia Plemmons, published in Structural Change and Economic Dynamics<\/em><\/a>, <\/em>we show that there is no reason to worry. We used 49 cases of sustained economic liberalization since 1970 and measured their effects on outcomes such as death rates from air pollution, total greenhouse gas emissions, as well as emissions per capita and per dollar of economic output. In this context, liberalization refers to the adoption of policies that promote international trade, secure property rights, and lessen fiscal and regulatory burdens.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Comparing with similar countries that did not liberalize, we found that while GDP per capita increased 16 percent within ten years for liberalizers, environmental outcomes did not deteriorate. In fact, we found that death rates from air pollution declined modestly, while there were no effects of liberalization on total greenhouse emissions. Moreover, post-2000 liberalizers actually showed signs of lower emissions per dollar of economic activity and capita.<\/strong><\/p>\n

In other words, pro-growth policies are not in tension with environmental preservation. Why would that be the case? In short, the policies themselves help the environment.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The article notes:<\/p>\n

Together these factors give rise to what is known as the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC), named in honor of Simon Kuznets<\/a> \u2014 a Nobel laureate in economics. It posits a relatively simple relationship whereby environmental degradation initially rises as economies grow and industrialize, but eventually declines<\/a> once societies become wealthier. As incomes increase, demand for environmental quality rises<\/a> while technological innovation reduces<\/a> pollution intensity.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The article concludes:<\/p>\n

Preservation or growth is a false choice. The same institutions that generate prosperity (property rights, open markets, and economic freedom) also encourage innovation, conservation, and better environmental outcomes. We should want more of them. We should want, for the sake of the environment, more liberalization!<\/strong><\/p>\n

Not only can we have our cake and eat it too, we are free to enjoy the cake from other nations who unknowingly have sacrificed growth to the god of environmental purity.<\/p>\n

Something to keep in mind:<\/p>\n

The following is from an article<\/a> I posted in March 2016:<\/p>\n

Then listen to the words of former\u00a0United Nations climate official\u00a0Ottmar Edenhofer<\/a>:<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cOne has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy<\/a>. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,\u201d said Edenhofer, who\u00a0co-chaired the U.N.\u2019s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change<\/a> working group on Mitigation of Climate Change<\/a> from 2008 to 2015.<\/strong><\/p>\n

So what is the goal of environmental policy?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cWe redistribute de facto the world\u2019s wealth by climate policy,\u201d said\u00a0Edenhofer.<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On June 16th, The Daily Economy posted an article about the belief that economic growth and environmental protection exist in direct tension. The evidence shows otherwise. The article reports: In recent work with Justin Callais and Alicia Plemmons, published in … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[16652,19701,19700,19699,223],"class_list":["post-64439","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-climate-policy","tag-economic-growth-vs-environmentalism","tag-structure-change-and-economic-dynamics","tag-the-daily-economy","tag-united-nations"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rightwinggranny.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64439","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rightwinggranny.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rightwinggranny.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rightwinggranny.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rightwinggranny.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=64439"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.rightwinggranny.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64439\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":64446,"href":"https:\/\/www.rightwinggranny.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64439\/revisions\/64446"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rightwinggranny.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=64439"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rightwinggranny.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=64439"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rightwinggranny.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=64439"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}