Inimeste (majandusliku) heaolu suurenemine tuleb paljude arvates millegi arvelt. Ja suur hulk inimesi on (argumenteeritud) arvamusel, et inimene (enda arvates) looduse kroonina on planeedile korvamatut kahju põhjustanud.
Siin üks 66 riigi võrdlevanalüüs 56-aastase perioodist inimese majandusliku heaolu kasvu ja keskkonnamuutuste näitajate vahel.


Since 1970, wild vertebrate populations have fallen by an average of 2% per year, leading to cumulative losses of 60% by 2014, and pointing toward further collapse to a mere one third of their initial abundances by the year 2020. […] Smith also claimed that capitalism distributes necessary goods equitably: “The rich . . . are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life, which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants” […] Piketty and Saez (2014) empirically disproved the “Kuznets curve” hypothesis that past a certain level of gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, further growth naturally reduces the gap between rich and poor.


I examine whether another Kuznets hypothesis—the environmental Kuznets curve or EKCmight help excuse Smith’s lack of concern […] I analyze 66 countries around the world over the 56-year period from 1961 to 2016. 1 This sample ranges across six continents and a wide spectrum of income levels, from Bangladesh’s 2016 GDP per capita of $3,959 to Luxembourg’s $103,764.

Mõned järeldused:

the results qualify and refine previous challenges to the predicted negative link between economic growth and income inequality […] the analysis presented here confirms a much more robust link between economic growth and the environmental damage indicated by the ecological footprint […] Given this, and the fact that the world’s ecological footprint already greatly overshoots global biocapacity, it is not a viable option to simply wait for the EKC to start reducing environmental degradation at some hypothetical point lying far in the future […] This suggests that if a country—rich or poor—is to reduce its ecological footprint, its economy cannot grow very fast. Indeed, in 69% of the countries and years in which footprints declined, GDP grew more slowly than the sample-wide median rate of 3.6% per year. Conversely, in 77% of the countryyear combinations with faster growth than that median rate, footprints increased.

Mikkelson, G. M. (2021). Invisible Hand or Ecological Footprint? Comparing Social Versus Environmental Impacts of Recent Economic Growth. Organization & Environment, 34(2), 287–297.