By Vijay Jayaraj

One of the biggest pushbacks to economic development today is the claim that growth destroys nature. Radical organizations like Extinction Rebellion label capitalism and agriculture as evil. The fossil-fuel industry in particular and industrialization in general are blamed for the loss of ecosystems and habitats. Mainstream media make dramatic claims that wildlife populations are in free fall worldwide, driven by human overconsumption, population growth and intensive agriculture.

But wildlife conservation becomes possible and achieves remarkable effectiveness through the synergy of economic development powered by hydrocarbons, dynamic resource utilization and the augmentation of human capital.

A key argument against economic development is that it leads to environmental degradation. Economically advanced countries, however, have often found themselves better at managing natural resources and protecting fauna, thanks to a greater availability of money and time.

Wealthier nations have the financial means and technological resources to invest in sustainable practices and conservation efforts. Economic prosperity provides the foundation for implementing sophisticated resource-management strategies that are often out of reach for low- and middle-income countries.

This is evident from the astronomical difference in how advanced economies and poorer societies deal with environmental stewardship. While areas of North America, Europe and Australia display some of the cleanest environments, large cities in the developing world struggle to tackle various kinds of pollution. Why is there a difference?

The answer is simple: Rapid economic progression and transitioning into a developed country equips leaders with the economic means to tackle pollution and address conservation needs.

Europe and the U.S. underwent massive industrialization in the 19th and 20th centuries when their cities were infamously smoggy. With economic prosperity, however, came stricter environmental regulations and the allocation of resources to comply with the new rules. An example of this is London, where a comparison of air pollution (as measured by suspended particulate matter) with per capita gross domestic product reveals an inverse relationship between pollution and growth — the more wealth, the less smog.

The situation in poor countries (especially those with large populations) is akin to that of the pre-industrialized West. They need to transition into a developed economy to have the wherewithal to protect the environment. Typically, governments of poorer economies are more concerned with overall economic development and feeding millions who live on less than $2.75 per day. But to achieve this transformation, they — like the Western nations of the 19th century — need to use unrestricted amounts of fossil fuels.

One modern example is India, where the wide use of coal over the past two decades has fueled rapid growth. This phase coincides with an astronomical improvement in people’s living standards. The country’s GDP averaged about 7% per year between 2008 and 2018. Average life expectancy increased from 65 to 69 in those 10 years.

Economic prosperity allowed India to invest in efforts such as the establishment of protected areas and stricter anti-poaching measures and developing community-based conservation programs. This, in turn, resulted in the expansion of forest area and a doubling of the tiger population.

Across the border, the availability of cheap and abundant energy from coal has fueled China’s manufacturing sector, making it the “world’s factory.” Like India, China has made considerable progress in tiger conservation.

Fossil fuels are reliable and cheap, two qualities missing in so-called renewables but critical to any industrial economy. Western industrialization utilized coal and oil. Today, low-income countries have the added advantage of using the same resources, as well as cleaner-burning natural gas, with innovations that will help them avoid the level of pollution experienced in 20th-century Western economies.

This commentary was first published at The Washington Times on May 27, 2024.

Vijay Jayaraj is a Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Virginia. He holds a master’s degree in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia, U.K.