Do we need to limit economic growth to protect the environment?

Economic growth and environmental progress go hand in hand. For example, economic progress means we can afford to clean our drinking water, a fact that has saved millions of lives over the past century. Since local engineers and industry introduced chlorination in the 1880's, waterborne-related deaths in the United States dropped from 75 to 100 per 100,000 people to fewer than 0.1 deaths per 100,000 annually in 1950.

Moreover, the efficiencies generated in developed economies actually increase the stock of resources. For example, the developed world's decreased dependence on wood for fuel and construction as well as modern forestry practices mean that Americans now consume half the wood they consumed in 1900, and we grow 36 percent more trees than we harvest every year. Accordingly, researchers estimate that there are more trees today in North America than when Columbus arrived in 1492.

Is the environment getting better or worse?

Many measures indicate that wealth created by development have helped improve the environment.  For example, enables nations to deal with air quality concerns, producing great improvements. Air quality is the worst in less developed nations because they use dirtier burning fuels—such as wood and cow dung—for home heating and cooking, which creates deadly levels of indoor air pollution. In developed nations, the picture is very different. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), air quality in the United States has improved tremendously as our economy has grown during the past several decades, even as the number of drivers and industrial activity increased.

The EPA reports, between 1980-2006 carbon monoxide levels have dropped 50 percent, the ambient concentration of lead has plummeted 97 percent; nitrogen dioxide ambient levels have declined by 33 percent; ozone concentrations have decreased by 17 percent; and sulfur dioxide levels have dropped 47 percent. In the last ten years, particulate matter concentrations (PM 10) have declined by 28 percent.

Should we control population to ensure that we don’t run out of food or other resources?

Some people say that population will outstrip our capacity to grow food, but history has proven that claim incorrect. Per capita grain supplies have increased by more than 22 percent since 1950, and food prices have dropped, indicating abundance, not greater scarcity. Wheat prices have gone from $256 per ton in 1950 to $90 per ton in the 1990s (in constant dollars).(2) A bushel of corn in 1950 would have cost $10.72 in year 2000 dollars, but in 2000, a bushel of corn sold for $1.80. These gains are not just confined to industrialized countries. Developing countries have also experienced impressive gains. The rate of increase in food production in poor countries has been more than double the rate of population growth. 

In addition to feeding more people, we are able to produce food more efficiently, using fewer and fewer acres and leaving more land available for wildlife habitat. To understand the true impact on the environment, consider that to grow the amount of food currently consumed, using 1950s technologies, farmers would have to plow an additional 10 million square miles of wildlife habitat.