Skip to content

Southern Fried Science

Over 15 years of ocean science and conservation online

  • Home
  • About SFS
  • Authors
  • Support SFS

Do richer nations pollute less? An evaluation of the Kuznets curve

Posted on November 27, 2011December 9, 2011 By David Shiffman 2 Comments on Do richer nations pollute less? An evaluation of the Kuznets curve
Conservation

We’ve often heard that “the solution to pollution is dilution”, but according to one theory, the best way to reduce pollution in the first place may be to encourage economic growth. This is best modeled by a simple theoretical figure called a “Kuznets Curve”. According to the Kuznets curve, extremely poor nations pollute relatively little, partially because they lack the technology and resources for large-scale industry. Moderately wealthy nations have the technology for large-scale industry, but not the resources for pollution-reduction measures. The wealthiest nations are able to create large-scale industry and can also afford to purchase pollution reduction technology for their industries (or alternative industries entirely).

A simple Kuznets curve (credit: David Shiffman)

If true, the Kuznets curve allows us to reduce both poverty and pollution. Unfortunately, evidence for the Kuznets curve is limited and inconsistent. It actually works fairly well for certain pollutants, like sulfur dioxide. Relatively poor nations lack the technology to produce sulfur dioxide in the first place, and relatively wealthy nations can afford to utilize alternative technologies that don’t produce as much sulfur dioxide (a known threat to public health).

Source: World Bank's World Development Report, 1992

 The Kuznets curve breaks down when you analyze other pollutants, particularly those associated with consumption, like household trash or CO2 emissions. For these pollutants, poorer countries produce less, and the wealthier a country is, the more they produce. It is certainly possible that if per capita income increases enough, we will start to see reductions in household waste and CO2 emissions, but it isn’t really feasible to assume that every nation in the world will see per capita income that’s drastically higher than what the richest countries currently enjoy.

Source: World Bank 1992 World Development Report

While there is some evidence supporting the Kuznets curve for certain pollutants, making everyone richer does not seem to be a silver bullet for pollution reduction. In fact, increased per capita income may even increase certain environmental problems associated with consumption, such as climate change. Reducing poverty and protecting the environment by reducing pollution are both worthy goals, but fixing one won’t necessarily fix the other. Saving the world, as it turns out, is complicated.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Threads (Opens in new window) Threads
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • Click to share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon

Related

Tags: environmental economics kuznets curve

Post navigation

❮ Previous Post: Are Neutrinos really faster than light? Irish folk rock parody band weighs in.
Next Post: Wording Matters: Conservation vs. Preservation ❯

2 thoughts on “Do richer nations pollute less? An evaluation of the Kuznets curve”

  1. Emmett says:
    November 27, 2011 at 8:37 pm

    Good points David. For some additional insights on this problem see here:

    http://naturalpatriot.org/2007/12/21/declining-ocean-health-its-the-economy-stupid/

  2. Steve says:
    December 8, 2011 at 11:41 pm

    Litter can be called a pollutant, but not trash. If we just dumped our trash in the street, you might have a case. We don’t. We dispose of it in a way that doesn’t cause disease and health problems or even aesthetic problems. CO2 is not a pollutant. It’s a naturally occurring gas necessary for plant life – that’s like calling a flood pollution from too much water.

Comments are closed.

Recent Popular Posts

Deep-sea Mining: It’s science fiction, until it isn’t.Deep-sea Mining: It’s science fiction, until it isn’t.May 14, 2025Andrew Thaler
My "Follow ocean science and conservation experts on Bluesky and Instagram" assignmentMy "Follow ocean science and conservation experts on Bluesky and Instagram" assignmentNovember 19, 2024David Shiffman
Here's what I teach my students about finding jobs in marine biology and conservationHere's what I teach my students about finding jobs in marine biology and conservationApril 10, 2024David Shiffman
Our favorite sea monsters – Ningen (#4)Our favorite sea monsters – Ningen (#4)September 7, 2010Andrew Thaler
Shark of Darkness: Wrath of Submarine is a fake documentaryShark of Darkness: Wrath of Submarine is a fake documentaryAugust 10, 2014Michelle Jewell
Alberta, Canada is the proud owner of the largest man-made pyramid on the planetAlberta, Canada is the proud owner of the largest man-made pyramid on the planetOctober 16, 2012Andrew Thaler
What can the funniest shark memes on the internetz teach us about ocean science and conservation?What can the funniest shark memes on the internetz teach us about ocean science and conservation?November 8, 2013David Shiffman
I turned my woodshop into a personal solar farm.I turned my woodshop into a personal solar farm.June 21, 2021Andrew Thaler
A quick and dirty guide to making custom feeds on BlueskyA quick and dirty guide to making custom feeds on BlueskyFebruary 7, 2024Andrew Thaler
What is a Sand Shark?What is a Sand Shark?November 12, 2017Chuck Bangley
Subscribe to our RSS Feed for updates whenever new articles are published.

We recommend Feedly for RSS management. It's like Google Reader, except it still exists.

Southern Fried Science

  • Home
  • About SFS
  • Authors
  • Support SFS


If you enjoy Southern Fried Science, consider contributing to our Patreon campaign.

Copyright © 2025 Southern Fried Science.

Theme: Oceanly Premium by ScriptsTown