Congressman Dave Brat, R-Va., recently drew heat for saying, “rich people, it turns out, like clean air and clean water,” at a town hall. Brat was pointing out that economic growth is good for the environment. Sam Levine at The Huffington Post quickly pounced on Brat’s comments, mocking him with a headline that says “Getting Rich Will Solve That Whole Environment Thing.” In reality, they’re right — economic growth will help solve “that whole environment thing.”
As Brat said, everyone likes clean air and clean water, including rich people. Everyone wants to see a healthy planet, and that desire does not disappear as people grow wealthier. But one thing does change as the country grows wealthier: the amount of resources available to devote to protecting the environment and invest in energy-saving technologies.
An example of how this occurs can be seen in how China has responded to environmental issues in recent years. Though it is still thought of as a polluter on a massive scale due to its rapid industrialization, as the Chinese population grows wealthier, it is beginning to demand a cleaner environment. As land values in wealthy cities increase, manufacturing plants move westward, often building cleaner, more modern factories as they do so. Additionally, technological advancements to social media are increasing public awareness about pollution issues and mobilizing public opposition to high-pollution factories. Chinese efforts to improve their impact on the environment are already resulting in clear signs of improvement.
Technological improvements are another byproduct of wealth that allows countries to move beyond fuel sources that harm the environment. Predictions about the impact of climate change are often overly pessimistic because they cannot account for the effect of technological growth on carbon dioxide emissions. This is one of the reasons why carbon emissions per dollar of GDP, a measure of energy efficiency, have been on the decline (in the United States and the world) for some time.
Many countries have made the mistake of attempting to transition to renewable energy sources too soon, and have paid the price for it. European countries in particular have spent tens of billions of euros to create their new renewable energy infrastructure, and have been punished with energy costs that are twice as high as in the U.S. In order to make renewable energy sources economically viable, many European countries implemented high tariffs and handed out subsidies to renewable energy companies. The resulting spike in energy prices forced many businesses which use large amounts of electricity to close or look to other countries for further investments. Ironically, coal plants are springing back up or even taking subsidies in order to fill the demand for energy that the renewable energy infrastructure cannot provide.
The U.S. should avoid making this same mistake. A far better approach is to allow the transition to renewables to occur naturally. As it becomes profitable to do so, companies and individuals will begin to move away from the dirtiest fossil fuels and high-energy products. Already this can be seen in America’s switch to relatively lean natural gas. U.S. carbon emissions hit a 27-year low in 2015 as electricity generation from coal has dropped 25 percent and electricity from gas has increased 35 percent. Additionally, a market for sustainable technologies is already forming, from the development of Elon Musk’s solar shingles to energy-efficient lightbulbs. Also, investors are also beginning to challenge corporations to provide them with a plan for a move to alternative energy in the future. The pace of change will be impeded, however, if economically damaging policies restrict the investment capital available for technological development.
Brat is correct to say that economic growth is the best thing we can do for the environment. Just as the development of fossil fuels allowed the world to move past whale oil, so too will technology let us progress beyond fossil fuels. Policymakers would be well served by heeding Brat’s words and not sacrificing our economic future in favor of misguided economic policies. In this case, not only can we have our cake and eat it too — it’s actually better that we do.
Andrew Wilford (@PolicyWilford) is an advocate with Young Voices.
If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.
