http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2014/02/environmentalism
Debates
and policy to reduce pollution are seen as detrimental to growth in an economy.
Previous polices that have decreased subsidies for fossil-fuels have cut carbon
emissions and boosted the economy. The article talks about a paper that discusses
different measures to cutting pollution that may have had beneficial long-term
economic impacts for individuals. The authors are comparing the adult labor-market
outcomes of those born in two different areas; places were the clean air act of
1970 decreased pollution and people in areas where pollution remained constant
during this period. They discovered that those born in areas of decreased
pollution earned more by their thirties. Doesn't this seem a bit strange? Since
the clean air act forced many dirty factories to close, one would expect the
incomes to decline because of unemployment increasing. The authors actually
found that benefits of better childhood health on adult incomes outweighed the
other negative economic effects. Exposure to pollution when young may affect
the rest of your life. These environmental issues need to be considered with
more care by politicians.
Interesting article. I think the tendency is to label environmental concerns as part of the wishy-washy liberal agenda, but it's nice to see more studies showing the economic benefit of living healthy, in addition to the physiological effects. A worker who is healthy is likely to be more productive, in my opinion, hence the findings of the study.
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing!
This is a unique perspective; to view the environmental issues related to the economy in the very long run and see that though it may hurt the economy in the short run, or even the long run, eventually, what is best for people might be best for the economy too.
ReplyDelete