Antonida Miftiu Prof. Biology April 22, 2012 Is Capitalism Good for the Environment?

We live in and from a material environment consisting of land, water, and air which, historically, has always been considered to be and treated as infinitely durable and usable. This does not mean indestructible. History records many instances of the destruction of parts of the environment by either natural processes or humans. As far as the natural processes are concerned, they have been operating since long before there was human life and will presumably continue to operate long after, and there is no reason to assume any unusual change in the foreseeable future. When it comes to destruction by human forces, however, things are different. Smallscale destruction of parts of the environment has occurred throughout history, and on occasion the scale has grown to quite impressive proportions. But even the largest of these destructive processes have remained small compared to the size of the environment as a whole. Tribes or even more complex societies have been wiped out or forced to move to new locations, but these were always local, not global, disasters. And throughout the ages, in fact, right up to the time of people now alive, it was always taken for granted that this would continue to be the case. The reason was a belief, perhaps rarely thought that the means possessed by human beings were too little to be a threat to the sheer magnitude and recuperative powers inherent in the environment. However, during the last 20 years, the developed and developing countries, have been debating on the need to stop damaging the environment further. On one side, the already

developed countries such as the United States, Western Europe as well as Northern Europe accuse mainly China, India, Russia and Brazil for generating development at the expense of the environment. On the other side, the less developed countries argue that they are going through a normal process of industrialization as the United States and Europe did 2 centuries ago. However, when it comes to the question whether capitalism is good for the environment, evidences do favor a long-term Yes. Research reveals that environmental protection goes hand on hand with economic development. The United States, Western European as well as Northern European countries which do have a higher GDP per capita and a fairer distribution of wealth are much more aware of the environmental issues. I think, this is exactly where capitalism leads. However, capitalism, besides being an economic, political and social system is also a process that takes time to fulfill. We should not focus on stopping the development process of less developed countries rather we should provide maximum support so that this process is fulfilled within a shorter time-frame. I was grown up in an ex-communist country of South-Eastern Europe, Albania. Up to the 1990s, Albanias environment was unpolluted but the economy was completely inefficient and the people were starving. Once the communist regime was overthrown and a democratic government was established the economy improved substantially. This development was achieved even at the expense of the environment, but as the economy improved, peoples awareness on various environmental issues increased. If I had to choose among a communist government, where a clean environment but yet a ruined economy prevailed and a capitalist economy, with a less clean environment and a fast growing economy, I would definitely choose the second alternative. I am absolutely convinced that the process of economic development will ultimately lead to raised awareness when it comes to environmental issues. Countries such as Norway, Denmark and Sweden, being among the
2

countries with the highest GDP per capita, are also very sensitive to environmental problems. If you travel to those countries you will immediately notice the difference between a developed and developing economy with respect to environment. In a 1992 speech commemorating Earth Day, Bill Clinton urged Americans to reject the false choice that environmental responsibility had to come at the expense of the economy. In the world according to Clinton, it was possible to bring powerful market forces to bear on Americas pollution problems. I believe it is time for a new era in environmental protection, he said, which uses the market to help us get our environment back on track to recognize that Adam Smiths invisible hand can have a green thumb. I think that since 1992, capitalism has proven itself to contribute in getting the environment back on track. I believe that rejecting capitalism will cause many ecological problems. According to the President of Nebraska Council on Economic Education, the benefit of capitalism is that it provides us with property rights that create the incentives to preserve, protect and improve. It is not surprising that the greatest ecological disasters have all occurred in societies without strong social institutions that protect property. Why is the air outside polluted and the air in your car clean? The answer is property rights. You dont own the air outside your car so you gladly pollute it whereas the air inside your car, over which you have a property right, is jealously maintained with airconditioning, filters and air fresheners. (Roger B, pg. 12).

In the last decade, the number of corporations becoming eco-friendly has increased substantially, showing that capitalism is a self-improving process. Many business owners believe that changing their processes to fit in with a more eco-friendly world will be expensive and time consuming. While it is true that environmentally friendly products can be more costly to purchase, in the long run they can save to companies a lot of money. For example, using high-efficiency light-bulbs, such as compact fluorescents, will cost businesses
3

75% less to run than standard light-bulbs and will last 10 times longer. Using email as much as possible, instead of sending faxes and emails, significantly reduces the companys overheads. Also, increasing numbers of people are deciding whether or not they use a company based on how eco-friendly they are. This means that it is becoming more and more important that businesses make environmentalism a part of their brand.

In conclusion, i would like to re-emphasize that capitalism is concerned with the constant improvement of the human environment. To achieve sustainable growth, growth consistent with the needs and constraints of nature, we need to secure the link between environmental and economic policies at all levels of government and in all sectors of the economy. Harmonizing economic expansion with environmental protection requires recognition that there are environmental benefits to growth, just as there are economic benefits flowing from healthy natural systems. Most environmentalists realize this, and a growing number are working creatively toward new policies that serve the long-term interests of both the environment and the economy. Growth raises expectations and creates demands for environmental improvement. As income levels and standards of living rise and people satisfy their basic needs for food, shelter, and clothing, they can afford to pay attention to the quality of their lives and the condition of their habitat. Once the present seems relatively secure, people can focus on the future.