Introduction

​

This essay will examine whether economic development necessarily leads to a disregard for planetary boundaries. This concept was first presented by Johan Rockström and other researchers in 2009 in the paper “Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity” (Rockström et al., 2009). 

​

In recent years, the debate on sustainability and the protection of the Planet has intensified. This is largely due to the discoveries made by researchers regarding climate change. In 1896, Swedish engineer Svante Arrhenius first established a link between coal combustion and the increase in the greenhouse effect (Black, 2013). In addition, he also suggests that the combustion of coal would cause the temperature to rise. Although at the time it was not clear what the consequences associated with this rise in temperature were, it was possible to establish a causal relationship between these two factors. Currently, there are technological innovations that allow us to understand in a much clearer way the implications that human actions have on the environment. It took about 100 years for policymakers and companies to start taking a more serious stance on the impact humanity is having on the environment.

​

Nowadays, many environmentalists wonder if humanity still has time to reverse all the damage it has been causing to the environment. In the capitalist system in which we live, it is not possible to look at the problem of the environment separately. In other words, people will always try to quantify the degradation of the environment in order to be able to calculate the impact that this inconvenience will have on their lives, in monetary terms. Thus, current economic theories argue that it is essential to find innovative ways to preserve the environment without jeopardizing the economic development of countries. These theories argue that economic development has been highly related to social evolution and improvement in the quality of life of citizens. The economists who subscribe to these ideas also argue that to have a constant social movement and improvement in the quality of life of the population, we must have continuous economic growth. However, more recent studies have shown some evidence that suggests that from a certain level of wealth, an increase in income will not lead to an improvement in the quality of life of the population. This new position of some researchers ends up calling into question all these theories and assumptions about continuous economic growth (Mota, 2020). Based on the growing influence of the latter theory, this essay will present some arguments that support the idea that economic development, associated with economic growth, threatens the planetary boundaries. For this debate to take place, it is necessary to consider the role that technological diffusion plays nowadays, since it is a determining factor for the productivity of countries and consequently for their comparative advantage. 

​

At the beginning of this essay, the definitions of the concepts of economic development and planetary boundaries will be presented, as well as the theories associated with them. Next, the relationship between economic development and respect for planetary boundaries will be analyzed in order to understand whether there is a causal relationship between these two ideas. In the last section of the essay, I will try to answer the initial question, and I will present some general considerations about the relationship between economic development and planetary boundaries.

​

Concepts and Theories of Economic Development

​

First, it is important to define the concept of economic development that will be used throughout this essay. According to the Cambridge Dictionary economic development is a process in which the economy grows or changes and becomes more advanced, especially when economic and social conditions improve (ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - Cambridge English Dictionary, n.d.). This definition turns out to be vague and uninformative, largely due to the fact that the concept of social improvement is quite broad. On the other hand, when economists refer to improving economic conditions, it is easy to quantify this progress using Gross Domestic Product (GDP), an indicator used to measure the size of a country's economy. 

​

As already mentioned, economic growth has been measured through the GDP growth rate of countries, and this indicator has also been used to measure countries’ development levels. For the last century, economists who have defended the idea that GDP is the most appropriate indicator to measure development assume that there is a linear relationship between economic growth and improvement in quality of life. In other words, these theorists argued that an increase in GDP would always translate into an increase in the quality of life of citizens. This theoretical heritage has meant that for a long time, the concepts of development and economic growth have not been distinguished apart. However, although economists now recognize that there is no linear relationship between economic growth and quality of life, they still believe that there is a positive correlation between these two concepts. More recent studies show that after a certain level of wealth, an increase in income will not translate into an improvement in the quality of life of the population. According to Gabriel Mota: "It is not because societies get richer that people necessarily live better, are happier, nor that the planet is sustainable" and the "relationship between GDP and happiness is not linear, and that the richer a nation is, the less the GDP can generate additional happiness" (Mota, 2020). 

​

Regarding the measurement of quality of life, despite the efforts of economists and other researchers in the field of social sciences, it has not yet been possible to find an effective indicator for measuring the level of quality of life in countries, this is because it is difficult to define this concept in concrete terms. What indicators should be considered to assess people's quality of life, should they be access to clean water, a balanced diet, education, health, security and freedom? Certainly, in a Western view these are basic needs that will have to be met, yet does the rest of the world share the same definition? The truth is that the way this concept is defined is very much related to the ideologies, beliefs and experiences of the individual who defines it. Certainly, the definition of the quality of life of a citizen of Canada will not be the same as that of a citizen of Congo, because their contexts are different. For this reason, in this work, I will define quality of life taking into account the Western lifestyle, since it is my reality. For this reason, I will assume that for a citizen to have a good quality of life, they must be able to meet their basic needs daily, have access to health care, live in a safe environment and enjoy freedom of expression and movement.

Taking into account this definition, quite exclusive, it is possible to say that the majority of the world's population does not have a good quality of life. Consequently, to achieve a good universal quality of life, it is important that in countries where the quality of life is lower, governments invest in the provision of education and health services while ensuring that the basic needs of the population are guaranteed. However, in order to achieve these objectives, these countries need to be able to achieve economic growth capable of financing these social innovations.

 

Concepts and Theories of Planetary Boundaries

​

In this segment, the theory of Planetary Boundaries will be presented, which is based on the idea that Planet Earth has finite limits in terms of its natural resources. This theory emerged from the growing need to understand the true natural limits of the environment and how it is impacted by human activity. The theory was developed by scientists at the Stockholm Resilience Center and its main goal was to outline a boundary line that should never be crossed. Although some flaws can be found in this analysis, particularly in the metric used to define the presented limits, this theory has been and continues to be one of the most significant scientific contributions of recent years aimed at preserving the environment in the fields of economics and ecology. (Rockström et al., 2009)

​

The over-exploitation of natural resources by the economic sector has put the balance of the environment at risk. Over the last century, the world has focused on maximizing profits and the extraction of available natural resources, without rationing them. The Planetary Boundaries theory led to a guide for human action, with the goal of ensuring that economic activity does not exceed the planet's limits while safeguarding the biophysical processes of Planet Earth. In the initial report from 2009, nine planetary boundaries were presented: climate change, biodiversity integrity, stratospheric ozone depletion, ocean acidification, biogeochemical cycles, land use, freshwater use, atmospheric aerosol loading, and introduction of novel substances. The authors acknowledge only being able to quantify the control variables for the first seven boundaries. Although economists have not been able to quantify the last two boundaries, they consider it important to include them. (Rockström et al., 2009)

​

The authors admit that the presented boundaries are based on normative assessments of reality, which consequently will translate into the possibility of there being a certain degree of error in the established boundaries. Each boundary was defined on the assumption that the other eight boundaries were not breached. Additionally, these nine boundaries may be subdivided into three branches: the first directly relates to the scale of human action and the planet's capacity to sustain economic activity. The second branch pertains to understanding Earth system processes, considering human action and its contribution to the development of more sustainable science. Finally, the third branch relates to resilience capacity and connection with complex dynamics and the self-regulation of living systems. (Rockström et al., 2009)

​

In recent years, the planetary boundary that has received the most attention has been the one associated with climate change. The fact that these are related to rising temperatures and negatively impact countries' economic performance (Dell et al., 2012) has led international institutions and most of the world's countries to begin focusing on controlling the rise in Earth's temperature, although studies show that the relationship between changes in temperature and income levels is not linear (Burke et al., 2015). Since global warming is directly related to CO2 emissions, governments have been led to take a stronger stance on reducing CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. Besides the rise in temperature, other events derived from climate changes will also have a very significant impact on the economic performance of each country, such as the occurrence of floods, tornadoes, fires, and the rising average sea level.

​

However, there are other problems that have arisen in the environment and that have not received due attention, such as the over-exploitation of mineral resources, fossil fuels, and biomass, which are associated with high levels of pollution. Additionally, scientists assert that we may be causing a loss of biodiversity so significant that it could be considered the sixth major mass extinction in the history of our Planet. Regarding agricultural intensification and changes in biogeochemical cycles, there has been a greater emergence of pests and diseases (Schor, 2022a).

​

Currently, our economy remains heavily dependent on the production of consumer goods. Although in many economies a considerable portion of the GDP is allocated to the service and financial sector, a considerable percentage is associated with the production of tangible goods. One of the questions that arises is whether in the future we will be able to live without extracting raw materials from nature in an unsustainable way. Closely associated with this is the population increase, which will inevitably create greater pressure on the available resources on Planet Earth, forcing society to seek more innovative and efficient means to maintain the current level of production while respecting planetary boundaries.

​

In the 2015 report, written by Will Steffen and other researchers, it is explained that two of the nine planetary boundaries had already been crossed, the boundary for biodiversity integrity, on the parameter of genetic diversification, and biogeochemical cycles. However, at that time there were still no metrics capable of assessing the current state of atmospheric aerosol release nor the introduction of novel substances, nor capable of measuring their limits (Steffen et al., 2015).

 

Relationship Between Economic Development and Planetary Boundaries

​

In this section of the essay, the relationship between economic development and planetary boundaries will be analyzed. Researchers from various fields, who are dedicated to studying the impact of human activity on ecosystems, have concluded that humans are indeed the main culprits behind the imbalance observed on the planet. This problem is partly stimulated by the current economic system, capitalism. Therefore, in order to ensure respect for planetary boundaries, it is important to rethink the economic model we follow. According to economist Julia Scholar, there are many changes that can and should be made to reverse the path of self-destruction that humanity is taking. According to the researcher, governments should invest in renewable energies, reform the agricultural system, and protect forests. Schor also states that despite their complexity, these measures are indispensable for preserving the environment. Moreover, she argues that these measures are not enough and that policies promoting well-being and climate preservation are necessary. (Schor, 2022b)

​

At this point in the discussion, the pressing questions are: Is it possible to continue with green economic growth, dissociating economic growth from environmental degradation? Or is it possible to have economic stagnation while quality of life improves and planetary boundaries are respected?

​

The two factors at the center of this debate are the quality of life of the population and the valuation of the environment and natural resources. The real question posed is whether it is possible to achieve these two goals simultaneously, to live in a world where the basic needs of populations are guaranteed, quality of life, allowing respect for planetary boundaries. Economists who advocate for green economic growth believe that technological innovations will ensure continuous economic growth and environmental preservation. They also argue that through investment aimed at adapting and transitioning the economic sector to greener practices, the living standards of citizens would not be compromised (Turner, 2020). For this to happen, human activity would need to stop emitting CO2 into the atmosphere; only then could green economic growth be ensured. However, even the richest countries have not been able to find an efficient solution to this problem. In 2015, the United Nations developed the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which addresses some of the world's problems, including inequality of opportunities, lack of healthcare services, poverty, and climate change (United Nations, 2023). However, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are only guidelines for countries to follow and have no legal value, so countries are not obligated to act according to them. For these reasons, economist Juliet Schor states that, currently, green economic growth remains a utopia. (Schor, 2022b)

​

On the other hand, economists who do not agree with this complementarity between ecological progress and economic development believe that the economy must stop growing in order for the Planet to be saved (Kallis, 2011). In response to the second question, we can use the arguments developed by ecological economics, which aims to analyze the relationship between humans and the environment in a different way. This theory analyzes economic activity as an element of a global system. Therefore, when human impacts on nature are significant, it is important to protect the environment to ensure the continuation of production (Schor, 2022a).

​

For Schor, one of the solutions for controlling GDP and reducing energy demand lies in reducing working hours while maintaining productivity levels. Statistics show that Germany and France, the countries with the largest reduction in emissions of toxic gases, are also the countries that have reduced the number of working hours most significantly. Meanwhile, countries like China and India have been increasing their CO2 emissions while increasing the average number of working hours. Research by the economist concludes that there is a correlation between the number of working hours and the level of emissions of countries. More precisely, a 1% reduction in the average number of working hours would lead to a 0.4% reduction in emissions. In analyzing this relationship, the researcher took into account two determining factors: scale effect and composition effect. The former is related to the number of working hours and the size of the economy, with an increase in the number of working hours increasing the size of the economy. On the other hand, reducing the number of working hours would decrease the size of the economy. Knowing that this is directly linked to the value of GDP and, consequently, GDP is linked to the emission of toxic gases, we can relate the number of working hours to the emission of pollutants. The second effect is related to people's lifestyles. To better understand this argument, we can analyze the case of a family with a high daily workload. Generally, these people are more likely to make decisions that will save them time since they have little leisure time. Some of these decisions may be linked to higher consumption of fast food, the purchase of pre-made meals, or travelling in a private vehicle instead of using public transportation or another more ecological means of transport. Generally, these decisions end up having a more negative impact on the environment. On the other hand, families with fewer working hours would have more availability to use less polluting transports, prepare their meals, and even grow some of their food. Therefore, according to the researcher, reducing the number of working hours would have a dual positive impact on the environment through the reduction of economic activity and the change in lifestyles that are destructive to the environment (Schor, 2022a).

​

This argument may be sufficient to assert that it is possible to achieve an improvement in the quality of life of people while respecting planetary boundaries. However, I believe that the economist's analysis does not take into account the economic situation of poor countries. Looking at the reality of the richest countries, it is possible to assert that reducing the number of working hours would translate into an improvement in the quality of life of citizens, but the same is not true in less advanced countries. 

​

Indeed, a significant change in the economic structure of a country would be catastrophic, especially in the poorest countries. Therefore, I believe it is not possible to find a miraculous solution for all the world's economies. Personally, I advocate the idea that while rich countries should stagnate their economic growth, fossil fuel exporting countries should redirect their economies to less polluting industries. As for poor countries that are not fossil fuel exporters, they should seek economic growth to improve the quality of life of their population. Considering these reasons, I believe that while some countries will need to focus on minimizing their ecological impact, other countries, the poorest, should focus primarily on improving people's well-being. This solution would lead to a reduction in environmental degradation, as much of the pollution made in developing countries is produced by rich countries.

​

Lastly, the debate between economic development and respect for planetary boundaries will inevitably call into question the policies implemented so far and the priorities of governments. How various countries will respond to the environmental challenges ahead will determine how their economic activity will develop. While some countries will have the capacity to invest in technologies capable of minimizing their impact on the environment, others will not have the capital available for such. At the same time, it is important to consider that generally poorer countries, with a low level of industrialization, have consumption patterns less harmful to the environment. Therefore, the way countries manage the effects of climate change is crucial for their economic performance (Chandy, 2023). This could lead to a point where poor countries will have increased difficulty in becoming rich, as climate changes make high rates of economic growth unviable (Patel et al., 2021).

 

Conclusion

​

Throughout this essay, it has been possible to put into perspective various arguments regarding economic development, economic growth, and respect for planetary boundaries. After analysing various theories related to the topic, I argue that continuous economic growth will always endanger planetary boundaries. Even if we consider constant and revolutionary technological innovation, I do not believe it will ever become completely independent of natural resources. For this reason, I believe that continuous and globalized economic growth cannot be possible indefinitely, as it will reach a point where natural resources will be exhausted. However, the aim of this essay was to evaluate the possibility of achieving economic development within planetary boundaries. Directly answering this question, I believe it is not possible, at least if we exclude utopian solutions. Since economic development requires an improvement in people's quality of life and/or economic growth, I do not believe it is globally possible to increase the well-being of the population without economic growth. And as mentioned earlier, there is a positive correlation between economic growth and environmental degradation.

​

Although the formulation of the question suggests that it would only be necessary to find a situation where economic development does not endanger planetary boundaries to assert that green sustainable development is possible. However, I believe it is necessary to be more ambitious and consider plausible and probable solutions. Being a social science, it makes complete sense to analyse reasonable solutions within the time we still have. For this reason, although I do not believe in fully green economic development, I believe that if countries rethink their priorities, we can still ensure a functional planet for the next generation.

 

As mentioned earlier, continuous research is necessary to find metrics that more accurately assess the damage human activity is causing to the environment so that more tailored and efficient solutions can be found.

​

​

Bibliography

Bibliography 

Black, R. (2013). A brief history of climate change - BBC News. BBC News - Science & Environment.

​

Burke, M., Hsiang, S. M., & Miguel, E. (2015). Global non-linear effect of temperature on economic production. Nature, 527(7577). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature15725

​

Chandy, L. (2023). Economic Development in an Era of Climate Change. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature15725

​

Dell, M., Jones, B. F., & Olken, B. A. (2012). Temperature shocks and economic growth: Evidence from the last half century. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 4(3). https://doi.org/10.1257/mac.4.3.66

​

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - Cambridge English Dictionary. (n.d.). Cambridge Dictionary. Retrieved June 15, 2023, from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/economic-development

​

Kallis, G. (2011). In defence of degrowth. Ecological Economics, 70(5). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.12.007

​

Mota, G. L. (2020). A Economia da Felicidade, de Francisco e o caminho da transformação. O Jornal Económico. https://jornaleconomico.pt/noticias/a-economia-da-felicidade-de-francisco-e-o-caminho-da-transformacao-681688/

​

Patel, D., Sandefur, J., & Subramanian, A. (2021). The new era of unconditional convergence. Journal of Development Economics, 152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2021.102687

​

Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E., Lenton, T. M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H. J., Nykvist, B., de Wit, C. A., Hughes, T., van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sörlin, S., Snyder, P. K., Costanza, R., Svedin, U., … Foley, J. (2009). Planetary boundaries: Exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and Society, 14(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03180-140232

​

Schor, J. (2022a). Planetary Boundaries - [ECO]NOMICS Part 3 - YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnEU3RVvsBM&t=1s&ab_channel=NewEconomicThinking

​

Schor, J. (2022b). System Change - [ECO]NOMICS Part 4 - YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eT0tp3OfF64&t=192s&ab_channel=NewEconomicThinking

​

Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M., Biggs, R., Carpenter, S. R., De Vries, W., De Wit, C. A., Folke, C., Gerten, D., Heinke, J., Mace, G. M., Persson, L. M., Ramanathan, V., Reyers, B., & Sörlin, S. (2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 347(6223). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855