GREEN GROWTH-WORLD ECONOMIC GROWTH AND

EVIRONMENT

INTRODUCTION

Green Growth is a policy focus for the Asia and Pacific region that emphasizes
environmentally sustainable economic progress to foster low-carbon, socially inclusive
development. Green Growth is a globally relevant approach to sustainable economic growth
that was developed in Asia. It is impeartive that countries in the Asia and Pacific region
continue their economic growth to alleviate poverty and to achieve social progress. However,
increased environmental degradation, climate change and diminishing natural resources
require an unconventional approach to support the export-driven economic activities of the
region. The Asia and Pacific region has been at the forefront of the 21st century surge in
economic growth, a situation driven primarily by exports and which has led to expanded
production requirements needed to fuel an ever increasing amount of trade. This has
significantly compounded the environmental carrying capacity pressures of many countries in
the region. These countries are now shouldering an increasingly greater share of regional and
global environmental production-related burdens. Coupled with evolving production patterns,
these impacts are driving changes in consumption patterns in these countries and policies are
needed to ensure that these developments will be environmentally sustainable. The past
axiom of “grow first, clean up later”, can not apply in a region that has such a limited natural
resource base and a rapidly growing population directly dependent on natural resources. In
light of the recent fuel, food and financial crisis is is now imperative for countries in the
region to reassess their development paths.

Economic growth is the increase of per capita gross domestic product (GDP) or other

measure of aggregate income. It is often measured as the rate of change in real GDP.
Economic growth refers only to the quantity of goods and services produced. An industrial
economy gets its resource from other countries.
Economic growth can be either positive or negative. Negative growth can be referred to by
saying that the economy is shrinking. Negative growth is associated with
economic recession and economic depression. Some economists believe that economic
growth provides a basis on which sustained environmental improvements can and often do
occur.
CONTENT

Green Growth is established with the formation of:

 THE BASIC PRINCIPLES

 THE PILLARS OF GREEN GROWTH

GREEN GROWTH: THE BASIC PRINCIPLES

Through its focus on the greening of economic growth, it is recognized that different patterns
of economic growth lead to different outcomes for ecological integrity and therefore also for
human well-being. The idea that the “quality” of economic growth differs depending on
policy choices, and that all countries - including developing countries - can choose their
development path, is a basic principle underlying the work done in greening economic
growth.

Quality of economic growth, in the context of sustainable development, may mean different
things in various countries and regions. In Asia and the Pacific, overall, there has been a
coincidence of rapidly expanding economies, poverty and substantial future consumption
pressures, as well as a natural resource base that is more limited than any other in per capita
terms. Thus, a focus on meeting human needs and improving well-being with the lowest
possible ecological cost is more relevant in Asia and the Pacific than in any other global
region. Developing policies to promote and measure the eco-efficiency of economic growth
is therefore a key way to meet the most important challenge to sustainable development in
this region reducing the pressure on the natural resource base while continuing to meet
human needs.

A focus only on improving environmental performance (that is, the end result, and mainly
pollution control) results in end-of-pipe solutions. At the same time, there is a need to take
action to address the environmental sustainability of the economy where the biggest eco-
efficiency gains can be achieved. The green growth approach provides the tools for this.

Hence the Basic Principles for Green growth are layed out as:

Quality of economic growth

Eco-efficiency of economic growth
Environmental sustainability vis-à-vis environmental performance

Quality of economic growth

Reviews of progress on achieving the Millennium Development Goals justify a growing

uneasiness with prevailing economic growth patterns, evidenced in the media and by some
research. Only a few countries have managed to increase incomes at all levels of society. In
most countries, the gap between rich and poor is growing. However, income inequality is
only part of the picture. Gender-based inequalities in access to health care and rural-urban
inequalities in relation to access to water and sanitation are also highlighted by these reviews.
Despite the picture of spectacular economic growth and poverty-reduction that the region
presents, over half a billion people in the region are undernourished and one in three children
under 5 years of age are underweight.
The degradation of the natural resource base exacerbates the situation and makes it more
difficult to advance towards achieving Goal 1 (eradicate extreme poverty and hunger) in a
way that benefits all persons in society. There is continuing evidence of reduced natural
capital in the form of declining air quality in many cities across the region, land degradation
and desertification, shrinking natural forest cover and increasing water stress. The limitations
of and continuing threat to natural capital compromise the ability of Governments to meet the
still substantial needs for economic growth.

Eco-efficiency of Economic Growth

Eco-efficiency, or minimizing environmental pressure while maximizing economic benefit, is

a key sustainability principle. A country’s economy can be thought of as a huge resource-
processing plant. Raw materials, including energy and water, go into the economy as inputs
to various production or consumption processes. At the other end, the result is goods, services
and waste. The transformation process is intended to result in some human benefit.
Maximizing the efficiency of resource use and minimizing pollution during the entire
transformation process across economic sectors is critical to achieving sustainable
development or economic benefit.

Environmental sustainability vis-à-vis environmental

Performance

Governments have strengthened environmental legislation and institutions geared towards

managing pollution and achieving, in as short a term as possible, specific environmental
goals. Pollution control, particularly that of production activity, has been the main focus.
However, continuing environmental threats, such as the disappearance of natural forests and
the rising volume and changing nature of waste, are evidence that the increase in
environmental pressure due to expanded consumption and production activities is not being
addressed successfully. Achieving eco-efficient economic growth means rethinking the
approach to managing environmental issues.

“Environmental sustainability” as applied to economic growth refers to the capacity of

economic growth processes and social change to ensure that natural resources are not
depleted faster than they can be regenerated and that ecological systems remain viable.
Economic growth must stay within existing carrying capacities. Mounting environmental
pressures cannot be handled successfully, through a sole focus on improving environmental
performance.

A closer look needs to be taken at the environmental sustainability of an economic system.

Table below compares the key differences between these two concepts.

Table: Environmental sustainability vis-à-vis environmental performance

Environmental Environmental
performance sustainability
Approaches approaches
Planning and policy Short- to medium-term Long-term perspectives
perspectives Perspectives
 Intervention in systems that Focus on improvements to Seek fundamental changes
impact on the natural existing modalities of to
environment consumption and patterns of socio-economic
production activity (consumption and
and end-of-pipe solutions production) to make them
more
eco-efficient
Seek to improve decision-
making processes that
impact on the
use of natural resources
Scope of responsibility Mainly implemented by Require the involvement
government agencies and and
private sector units support of all government
responsible agencies, the private sector
for environmental and
management the wider society
Measures and indicators Use traditional measures Seek to determine the
and impact of
indicators of environmental patterns of natural
quality – e.g. extent of resource use
forest by focusing on the linkages
area, concentrations of between the use of
pollutants environmental goods and
services and anthropogenic
activity: for example,
eco-efficiency of use of
ecosystem goods and
services
(e.g. total material flows
per unit
of GDP, and pollution
produced
per unit of production)

THE PILLARS OF GREEN GROWTH

 Eco-tax reform
 Sustainable infrastructure
 Greening of business
 Sustainable consumption

Where economic growth is determined by market forces, and market forces do not take into
account environmental costs, environmental protection is doomed. Climate change is the
most prominent example of such market failure.

Eco-tax reform
Eco-tax reform (ETR) uses fiscal policy measures to steer economic burdens away from
economically beneficial activities (such as employment) towards environmentally harmful
activities (such as the generation of pollution). With this approach, decision-making at every
level, by the individual in society up to the highest national Government forum, is steered
towards minimizing the environmental impacts of growth.
ETR, also known as green tax and budget reform, is a powerful policy tool for building more
effective, efficient, socially beneficial and environmentally sustainable fiscal systems and
economies. Its key principles are the internalization of environmental costs in the market and
revenue neutrality, that is, green taxes should not pose an additional burden.

The 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment6 showed unequivocally that the natural capital
on which the world’s economies and societies depend is highly degraded, making the
majority of these economies unsustainable at the current rates of resource use. Yet, even after
the release of this landmark report, few economies have adapted their patterns of growth to
reflect such limitations.

Prices are the software of societies and economies; they influence spending and investment
behaviour and are therefore powerful tools for determining patterns of economic growth.
Market prices do not usually reflect ecological costs, so while decisions made on the basis of
market prices may be economically expedient, they will not be ecologically efficient that is,
they will not minimize ecological costs while maximizing economic benefit.

In 2003, research paper submitted by, A. Verbruggen compared electricity prices and
electricity intensities (electricity used across each economy, per unit of GDP earned) and
revealed a neat curve.

At the top end of the curve lay the countries with high energy prices and low electricity use
per unit of GDP (electricity intensity), typically high-income countries. At the low end of the
curve lay the countries with very high electricity intensities and very low electricity prices. In
the middle of this curve lay a few surprises: countries such as the United States of America
showed higher electricity intensities than expected for expected for their stage of
development. Every unit of GDP earned by the United States of America required twice as
much electricity as those of countries such as Denmark and Sweden.

The distribution represents the evidence that higher energy prices encouraged the
development of energy-efficient economic structures without precipitating economic disaster.
The economies of countries that had the highest energy prices were, in fact, among the most
stable in the world. In addition, they were known for their achievements in socio-economic
development, as measured by the human development index.

Energy pricing that steers the consumer towards more efficient energy use patterns is a
standard instrument in environmental tax reform. When environmental taxes are applied in a
revenue-neutral approach to ETR, they become a powerful tool for achieving both economic
growth and environmental protection objectives (see Diagram).
 Diagram:Eco-tax reform and Green growth

In 1993, the European Commission took an in-depth look at the future challenges it faced and
assessed how prepared the economic bloc was to deal with them. The Commission concluded
that there had been “an insufficient use of labour resources and an excessive use of
environmental resources.

High taxes on the use of labour in the corporate sector and low or zero taxation on pollution
and resource use had led to the inefficient use of both labour and environmental resources as
well as to undesirable economic, social, and environmental outcomes.

The recommendation was to reverse the situation in a revenue-neutral way: to shift the tax
burden towards the “bads”, and away from the “goods”. Reduced taxation on employment,
for example, and increased taxation on pollution, or resource use would simultaneously
stimulate employment and encourage more efficient resource use as well as cleaner
production and consumption activity. ETR was on its way. Leading this shift were the Nordic
countries region, followed by the Netherlands and other countries in the European Union.
The ETR leaders in Western Europe are Sweden and Germany. In 1991, the Government of
Sweden considerably reduced income taxes to tackle the unsustainable social welfare system,
which provided the Government with a political opportunity to increase energy taxation.
A key principle of ETR is revenue neutrality, that is, the redirection of taxation and burdens
from socially beneficial activities (for example, employment) towards environmentally
harmful activities. Budget allocations could also be revised to support such taxation reform
by, for example, by increasing investment in mass transit infrastructure to make it viable for
people to leave their cars at home. The goal is a net zero increase in the tax burden, but a
positive impact on employment and polluting behaviour through the market.

Sustainable Infrastructure

Sustainable infrastructure development is a critical focus of green growth. While

infrastructure expands, it locks economies into specific patterns of resource use (such as
energy) for decades into the future. In Asia and the Pacific, where there is rapid urbanization
and significant shortfalls in almost every kind of infrastructure, investments in infrastructure
may be turned into investments in environmental sustainability and an opportunity to build
more sustainable economies.

Green building design can reduce energy and water use by human settlements by more than
30 per cent over the lifetime of the structure; this does not take into account the potential
savings from applying eco-efficiency concepts to all types of infrastructure development. The
resulting savings in building operation and infrastructure development costs can help a
nation’s products and services become more cost-competitive in the global marketplace.

Infrastructure development patterns are the most important, but least recognized,
determinants of the consumption patterns of a country. As cities grow upwards and outwards,
highways lengthen and water, energy and sanitation services are expanded to people who do
not yet have the basic requirements for a good quality of life, the region’s growing
populations are locked into energy and water consumption patterns determined by the
infrastructure through which these services are delivered.

The spectres of climate change and growing resource scarcity suggest that policymakers and
planners who are now accountable for only the capital costs of a building, a transportation
system or a new urban centre when it is constructed should also be accountable for the social,
resource-use, pollution and environmental costs over the lifetime of the infrastructure, far into
the future. The potential savings are substantial.

An investment of about US$100,000 to incorporate green building features into a US$5

million building would result in savings over 20 years of US$1 million. While buildings
typically operate for over 25 years, a report for the Packard Foundation showed that building
life increased with its “greenness”. Aside from the cost savings from reduced energy and
water use and maintenance, most of the benefits of green buildings can be measured in terms
of worker health and productivity.

The difficulties that decision makers face in meeting the challenge of sustainable
infrastructure development are not simply a matter of a lack of finances. Even where there are
no financial constraints, significant and chronic shortcomings with respect to eco-efficiency,
social inclusiveness and disaster risk management are observed often from the inertia of
doing things “the way they’ve always been done”, a lack of incentives or a lack of knowledge
about sustainable design possibilities.

Improving sustainability in infrastructure development requires explicit attention to eco-

efficiency, achieving more with less consumption of resources (energy, water, land and raw
materials) and production of pollution (such as CO2, SO2, nitrogen oxides) over both the
construction and usage phases of infrastructure. Concepts and tools such as material intensity
per unit of service and material flow analysis can help determine resource consumption in the
delivery of infrastructure services in order to measure eco-efficiency. These concepts help
focus infrastructure decisions on eco-efficiency criteria and achieve the necessary paradigm
shift in thinking and practice.

Sustainable infrastructure should:

 minimize resource use and ecological impacts throughout the life cycle;
 preserve ecosystem integrity;
 not aggravate adverse global phenomena as climate change and ozone depletion;
 deliver economically viable goods and services;
 maximize long-run economic growth for the benefit of all;
 be financially viable;
 be managed and operated in a sustainable way;
 be socially inclusive;
 contribute to reducing poverty;
 contribute to meeting the MDGs;
 be appropriate for the stage of development and context; and
 be accepted and supported by the general popu lation

Greening of Business

Another aspect of the hardware of an economy is the production and consumption of goods
and services. The rate at which these goods and services are produced, and how they use
environmental resources and services (as raw materials in their production, as inputs to their
operation, or as waste sinks) are critical sources of environmental pressure. These pressures
are growing with the rise of the consumer classes and the growing power of Asia and Pacific
as an engine of the world economy.

The greening of business and sustainable consumption remain the core prerequisites for
meeting both human welfare and environmental protection needs.

The Third Green Growth Policy Dialogue: the Greening of Business and the Environment as
a Business Opportunity presented a wide variety of public policy solutions and business
practices for the sustainable development of business (the greening of business). The
Dialogue focused on the following questions:
How can ecological efficiency be harnessed as a driver of economic growth and
environmental sustainability?
How can environmental protection and ecological efficiency be presented as a business
opportunity, rather than a burden and cost?

High-speed economic development is continuing in the Asian and Pacific region despite
increasingly visible signs that the natural capital that underpins wealth creation is rapidly
diminishing. Natural capital is both the ecosystem goods (raw materials) that enterprises
transform into value for humanity every day (for example agricultural products, water and
minerals) and the equally and perhaps more important ecosystem services that make Earth
habitable by stabilizing the global climate, cleansing water and air, pollinating agricultural
crops, storing nutrients in soils, and supporting spiritual values, cultures and recreation.
Transforming business practices to restore, rather than destroy, natural capital is a critical
public policy strategy for sustained prosperity.
The best managed companies in the world are on this “sustainability journey” and are
threatening to leave the others behind. The competitive advantages of sustainability accrue
through the greater efficiency of energy and materials, but equally, if not more so, from
enhanced labour productivity.

We are fortunate that environmentally sustainable business strategies and techniques translate
into short- and long-term global business competitiveness.
The social networks (that is, social capital) that facilitate sustainable business health are
rapidly growing and are continually enhanced by public and private institutions and
sustainability-oriented public programmes. These provide the Asian and Pacific region with
substantial opportunities to synergize poverty reduction and environmental protection efforts.

“Sustainability” for a businessperson has two meanings, both of which are important in order
for the business to add shareholder/owner value and social value.
The first meaning of “sustainability” is the traditional one: that the situation can endure over
time. It is the desire of every business owner that the business is healthy, growing and
enduring. This requires sustained competence in business basics: the global competitiveness
of products and services, human productivity, sufficient capitalization and cash flow
management.

“Sustainability” now also has a second meaning: the alignment of business operations with
the sustainable development principle of not impoverishing the next generation by destroying
social, human or natural capital.
Natural capital and social capital are closely related, and policies that build or destroy one
often build or destroy the other as well, especially in the long run. Building and preserving
social capital, as well as human capital (that is, people’s skills and education and family
stability/health), not only allow people to prosper, or at least to survive, today but also allow
people to invest in natural capital rather than simply consume it.

Nearly all of the most successful businesses in every sector of the global marketplace have
adopted sustainability strategies. They include Wal-Mart Stores, Inc; BP; E.I. DuPont de
Nemours and Company (DuPont); Intel Corporation; Sony Corporation; Matsushita Electric
Industrial Co., Ltd. and Microsoft Corporation.

Businesses notable for their efforts in the sustainability in the Asian and Pacific region
include Yuhan-Kimberly of the Republic of Korea, which was named the most respected
company in the Republic of Korea in 2006 (see Figure below), and MAS Holdings (Pvt) Ltd.
of Sri Lanka.
These companies demonstrate that sustainability is a successful marketplace strategy today,
even with the many governmental policy and marketplace barriers that need to be addressed.

Figure: Greening Business Mechanism

All organizations (for-profit businesses, non-profit enterprises and government operations)
face similar challenges in implementing sustainability strategies. These challenges can be
summarized as follows:
 Integrating sustainability (long-term social and environmental responsibility) with
revenue/profit
 goals and short-term financial challenges
 Making “sustainability performance” everybody’s job
 Allocating capital for both short-term (often “baby-step” and/or symbolic) successes
and
 long-term sustainability performance investments
 Creating an organizational culture that embraces and reinforces sustainability values –
usually
 within a socio-economic environment that has not done so
 Convincing shareholders and other important stakeholders, including employees, that
sustainability
 strategies are critical for the organization’s future and are based on sound
scientific/economic
 assessments of the future rather than a passing fad
 Expanding sustainability strategies beyond operations under the organization’s direct
control to the
 entire value chain
 Creating sustainability management systems that add more value than their costs of
development
 and implementation (often including third-party auditors)

These practices are often constrained by poor economic, institutional and legislative
infrastructure (for example, inflexible or slow regulatory systems, flexible “rules of law”, and
inflexible regulatory systems not attuned to sustainable business strategies).
Sustainable Consumption

Several Asian and Pacific countries have made stunning progress in reducing poverty and
enhancing the quality of life for millions of their citizens.
As prices of natural resources and commodities rise, as climate change deepens and
accelerates, and as mountains of waste overflow landfills and stretch municipal budgets,
sustainable consumption is emerging as a necessary condition for continued economic
growth, even in developing countries.

This region, with the lowest per capita access to natural resources, cannot afford to use its
natural and other resources wastefully. But as incomes in the region grow, consumption
patterns become less and less eco-efficient. Sustainable consumption strategies make it
possible to achieve eco-efficient economic growth while people rediscover, reinstate and
revitalize rich Asian and Pacific cultural values and traditions.

While a large proportion of the region’s population still does not have access to the basic
needs of food, energy, water and infrastructure, declining poverty rates are giving birth to a
rising consumer class. While sustaining the growth of economies across Asia and the Pacific,
it is already exerting high levels of environmental pressure, evident in the form of
unmanageable levels of waste and pollution, and increasing energy and water demand
exceeding existing resources. In Pakistan, the contribution of domestic demand to GDP more
than doubled between 2006 and 2007, with substantial increases also in Indonesia, the
Philippines and Singapore. The health and other environmental impacts are unfairly borne by
those who can least afford it – the poor. At the same time, climate change provides
indisputable evidence that global environmental systems are reaching a tipping point.
Emerging from NGOs, business and governments are other leaders that have the courage and
will to lead their countries into adopting a more sustainable development pattern.
Globalization is beginning to play a conducive role in spreading such moderation and
simplicity in lifestyles that can contribute to enhancing the environmental and social
sustainability of the region. Sustainable consumption strategies now have greater momentum
and potential for success than ever.
 Whole-system approach to sustainable consumption

CONCLUSION

Today, people in the Asian and Pacific region are looking for ways to revive and reinstate
traditional cultural values that promote the sustainable, eco-efficient use of natural resources,
and so build business competitiveness. Sustainable consumption is supported when
traditional values, such as doing more with less, are embraced, and supported by public
policy. The revival and strengthening of such values have been described as actions
underpinning societal change, and are often seem as complementary to ideals related to social
justice and harmony.

REFERENCES

http://www.greengrowth.org/

ESCAP, State of the Environment in Asia and the Pacific 2005: Economic Growth and
Sustainability (United Nations publication)

“Towards environmentally sustainable economic growth (green growth) in Asia Pacific”-

article