Opinions: Is the Recession Good or Bad for the Environment?

Is pollution an unavoidable byproduct of economic prosperity? (image: libcom.org)

Although the economic downturn is not creating much good news lately, there is one unintended consequence that seems like a good thing:  the reduction in jobs, driving, flying, eating out, spending, and consuming all add up to a reduction in environmental destruction.

In an opinion piece in the March 30th issue of the New Yorker, writer David Owen discusses the connections between economic and political implosions—such as our current recession—and the rise in environmental benefits. He cites the fall of the Soviet Union and the subsequent closing of its vast polluting industrial complex as a case in point, and reports that as a result, Russia and the other newly liberated surrounding countries such as Ukraine, Latvia, and Estonia have been among the most successful in reducing their emissions. Owen’s analysis appears on the occasion of the upcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference, which will produce a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, which was adopted in 1992 and is set to expire in 2012.

Although the U.S. chose to not ratify the Kyoto Protocol, Canada did—so we can get a pretty good picture of how a country with a similar economy and per-capita oil consumption to ours has fared in their attempt to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. And the short answer is … not very well. Canada’s target was a six percent reduction from 1990 levels. But in 2006, despite spending billions on climate initiatives, Canada’s greenhouse-gas output had increased to 122 percent of the goal. Owens reports that Canada’s environmental minister pronounced the target ‘impossible.’

He does point out that the environmental benefits of a recession are not only fragile but also somewhat illusory. When jobs are cut, that includes jobs in the already-small alternative energy industry, which only provided about half a percent of total U.S. energy consumed in 2007. Moreover, because the environmental effects of reduced consumption are unintended consequences and not a desired goal, the benefits will be short-lived: we want people to get back to work; hence, go back to consuming.

Over at Huffington Post, however, there’s a different take on the connections between the environment and the recession. Michael Graham Richard gives several reasons why the recession is bad for the environment: companies will cut back on their research and development into green initiatives, which are typically not short-term profit generators;  if people need something, they will buy the cheapest product which is generally not the “green” product, which applies to a host of things, from double-paned windows and better insulation to organic apples and hybrid cars.

Richard also points out that with the credit crunch and tighter loan rules, many small firms and startups working on cleaner technologies will have trouble getting funds. And finally, he says that during an economic crisis, voters and lawmakers will accept all sorts of measures and laws, including those that aren’t good for the environment.

In fact, that’s already beginning to happen. Many states, dealing with drastic budget shortfalls, are choosing economy over environment. Lawmakers in California and Montana are eroding environmental regulations by creating new road and construction projects in efforts to stem unemployment. In Utah, lawmakers are weighing whether to take nuclear waste for cash. Kansas is looking at legislation that would permit the building of coal-fired power plants, although Governor Sebilius has said she would veto the measure.

Weighing all this information leads to one conclusion: Like everything else, the effects of the recession on the environment are a mixed bag. But whether or not we get some environmental benefits from the current economic downturn will, ultimately, not make much of a difference. If we’re all just waiting to go back to our old habits, it’s a lost opportunity. Changing the way we choose to live—transitioning from a consumer society to a sustainable society—will require much more than whatever byproducts are produced from the recession. Until the American public and their representatives in Washington take a passionate, proactive stance to reduce greenhouse gases, meaningful environmental progress will not be made.