One of the most common criticisms of the free economy is that it hurts the environment. This criticism crops up in a number of contexts: global warming, energy policy, sustainable development, population control, etc. And while it takes on slight variations in form in each of these contexts, the basic argument is:

- The free economy encourages consumption
- Consumption uses scarce resources and creates waste
- The use of scarce resources creates an ecological imbalance
- The creation of waste causes environmental degradation
- Left unchecked, then, the free economy will destroy the environment

Such an accusation, if true, is damning. We have a moral responsibility to be good stewards of the earth, as the US Bishops pointed out in their statement Global Climate Change: A Plea for Dialogue, Prudence, and the Common Good: Indeed, one of the "central moral questions" raised by the Bishops is "How can we as a 'family of nations' exercise stewardship in a way that respects and protects the integrity of God's creation and provides for the common good, as well as for economic and social progress based on justice?"

The very wording of this question seems to imply there is a trade-off between stewardship of God's creation and economic progress. It is a trade-off that has its roots in Rev. Thomas Malthus' classic 1798 work, Essay on the Principle of Population, but has been picked up in recent years by Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb. Indeed, this trade-off has become conventional wisdom: economic growth increases pollution of all kinds, which in turn degrades the environment.

The only problem with the conventional wisdom is that the facts don't support it. Consider the following picture:



This graph is taken from The Skeptical Environmentalist, a data-packed, controversial text by Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg. But while the book itself is controversial, the data in this graph is not: it is based on studies by the World Bank and the World Economic Forum.

The point here is that, in general, rich countries are cleaner than poor countries. In other words, economic growth is more likely to create a cleaner environment.

The reasons for this are simple. A clean environment costs money. Rather than dump toxins in a field somewhere, we have to collect, transport, and dispose of it. Rather than release noxious gases into the atmosphere, we have to capture, scrub, and dispose of them. Rather than pump waste into a river, we have to filter, process, and dispose of it. All of this costs money.

Unfortunately, poor nations lack the money to clean up their messes. Think of it this way: if you have a choice between food and clean air, you choose food. You might end up with a hacking cough, but that's better than starving to death. On the other hand, if you have sufficient wealth so that you have to choose between clean air and a third car, you'll probably choose clean air.

Now, of course, in the short run, economic growth may get worse. In fact, it almost always does. London was a much dirtier place during the Industrial Revolution than 200 years before. But now, environmental quality has come full circle, and the City of London is cleaner now that it has been in 500 years. The growth that created the pollution also created wealth, which eventually was used to clean up the mess.

So, if you really want to improve the environment, grow the economy.