The general idea behind it is that people with higher incomes demand
cleaner spaces, at least for themselves. Down in Oceania, as of 2005, NZ
was ranked #27 in per captia GDP, a wealthy nation by global standards.
Higher incomes allow people to include environmental quality in their
living standard. Whereas populations living a marginal existence are
more likely to consume their environment for survival. As long as it
took for the industrial west to recognize its return on investment in
human capital, this construct has not translated well into the
developing world. There's a fantastic example of this in La Oroya, Peru,
where a smelting plant's temporary closure has forced the people into a
position of choosing between improved health and employment. I believe
they chose the latter. The corporate pursuit of underregulated
production locations also illustrates the "Not in my backyard!"
mentality, at least in part.
But, perhaps you're right, maybe the world shouldn't have shrugged the
UK off its shoulders and, instead, learned by its example. :)
MichaelHughes7A@xxxxxxx wrote:
In a message dated 21/03/2010 14:54:11 GMT Standard Time,
trevor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
I teach my economics students that research finds direct
correlation between environmental quality and per-capita GDP.
Might be better to tell them that generally speaking the
conservationist already has his house in the forest.
I would venture to suggest that New Zealand is high on environmental
quality and relatively low on GDP.
If your definition of environmental quality includes such things as
effective sanitation and clean water supplies then there is good
historical evidence for these being developed as a result of
concentrations of population drawn together by the possibility of
finding work.
In the UK the industrial revolution brought about large textile towns,
cholera outbreaks and then improvement in sanitation and water supply
to ensure the survival of the units of labour aka working class people.
Michael
