Should economic growth be prioritised over environmental sustainability?

In a world where governments pursue prosperity at all costs, humanity’s blind faith in economic development has become misguided. While economic growth has historically improved living standards, industrialised economies still continue to chase these superficial numbers, even as global biodiversity loss amounts to USD 10 trillion annually (Biodiversity, 2025) and over 22.5 million people are displaced per year due to weather-related disasters (Torres and Casey, 2017). The innovations of tomorrow cannot be relied upon to solve the problems of today. To ensure long-term stability, policymakers must adopt sustainable strategies that put the environment at the centre of economic planning, ensuring that progress does not come at the sacrifice of our world’s future.

For citizens of all too many developing countries, economic growth is indeed vital to achieve a basic standard of living. World Bank data shows that 8.5% of the global population, almost 700 million people, live on less than $2.15 per day in extreme poverty (Poverty Overview, 2024). Based on history, industrialisation seems to be the sole answer to this problem: it has lifted millions out of poverty, catalysed infrastructure development and technological advancement, and created many jobs (Müller, 2024). In the last 40 years, China’s industrialisation has reduced the number of people below the International Poverty Line by nearly 800 million (China, 2022). Nonetheless, tangible improvements in the basics of life happen way before a country’s per capita income reaches the level of advanced industrialised economies (Friedman, 2006). Over the past three decades of economic growth in the US, living standards have barely improved, and life expectancy has increased by less than 1% (O’Neill, 2024). Despite this fact, industrialised countries continue to blindly pursue economic prosperity at the expense of global health, threatening the future with a preponderance of catastrophic climatic events (Sturm et al., 2025). Even in emerging economies, blindly prioritising economic growth with inadequate supporting frameworks only exacerbates income inequality and lowers average living standards. In sub-Saharan Africa, for every 1 percentage point increase in GDP per year, an average of nearly 130,000 people per country fell into extreme poverty (Ecker, Ortiz-Juarez and Molina, 2023) as the poorest were left behind without sufficient investment in infrastructure and governance. Prioritising sustainable growth, both for communities and the environment, is vital to translating economic expansion into welfare gains.

Per Daniel Bell, “Economic growth has become the secular religion of advancing industrial societies.”(Bell, 1972) Modern society features an unfounded belief that growth-driven technological innovation will autonomously resolve the environmental crisis, justifying the destruction of ecosystems with the argument that economic growth will eventually lead to environmental improvements. Indeed, the advancement of clean energy has accelerated green transitions, with new installed electricity capacity in 2024 comprising 92.5% renewables (Morgan et al.). Still, given that land degradation has reached up to 40% (‘UN Summit Puts Global Spotlight on Land Degradation’ 2024), natural resource depletion will outpace replenishment rates with irreparable damage. Future technological innovations can’t bring back the more than 1 million species threatened with extinction (Martin, 2019) or the 48% of the world’s land area at risk of flooding by 2100 (Kirezci et al., 2020). The concept of economic growth and environmental sustainability is simply incompatible under the current system.

However, despite this pressing need for immediate sustainability action, developing countries have adopted a superficial approach, focusing on the carbon footprint of emerging economies rather than their own. In a form of ‘green imperialism’, proposed agreements like the EU’s CBAM burden developing countries with carbon taxes (Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism - European Commission, 2025), reducing their price competitiveness and squashing their hopes of development. This is while the economic prosperity of industrialised nations was built on decades of environmentally destructive practices, with their emissions accounting for 80% of global CO2 emissions (Müller, 2024). While the Paris Agreement reaffirmed the 100 billion USD pledge by developed countries to vulnerable countries for climate action, the US provided only 5% of its fair share (Goswami and Koop, 2023). Advanced economies isolate themselves from global collective action on climate change with insincere sustainability strategies and empty promises, failing to recognise that it affects them just as much. In fact, over 90% of Europeans living in cities are exposed to harmful air pollution, causing more than 200,000 premature deaths per year (Environmental health impacts, 2025). 

Developed countries must confront the harsh reality: their current actions are not enough. Monetary gains must be temporarily abandoned in favour of a global, sustainable system – a circular economy in which economic growth can occur without sacrificing the natural world. Per the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, a circular economy ‘redefines growth, focusing on society-wide benefits.’ (Circular Economy Overview, no date) The concept of CE reduces the burden on natural resources, enabling developing countries to pursue sustainable industrialisation for long-term, sustained growth. However, this requires social responsibility from developed countries, given the limited resources of local governments in emerging regions to set up CE programs. The previously established Green Climate Fund, which financially supports developing countries, has set a significant precedent (Goswami and Koop, 2023). However, advanced economies must now back up their promises with action.

Global stakeholders must recognise that a greener economy is in everyone’s self-interest. The EU environmental economy has created 2 million new jobs between 2000 and 2021, while generating a 937 billion euros output in 2021 (Statistics Explained, no date). Observing CE principles in developing countries, Bangladesh has saved US$4.7 million from recycling lead from batteries (Ahmed, Mahmud and Acet, 2022). Even in the private sector, the majority of research tends to support a positive correlation viewpoint between ESG systems and corporate performance in the long run (e.g., Agbakwuru et al., 2024), as improved corporate social responsibility enhances firm reputation and innovation while increasing customer loyalty, improving overall financial performance (D’Amato, D’Ecclesia and Levantesi, 2024). Given the mutual benefit of environmental implementation, a circular economy is not out of reach even in a capitalist system. Nevertheless, CE success will require local government support and making the national regulatory and policy framework conducive for circular economy finance (‘CIRCULAR-STEP Mobilising Financing- 4.28.2023_0.pdf’, no date). A CE era focuses on external partnerships and stakeholder collaboration. Through public-private partnership, China’s sludge-to-energy program not only reduced almost 98% of emissions, but was also financially breaking (Maassen, 2017). With sufficient support, minor green projects in developing regions can scale to a systems-level circular economy, driving economic growth through sustainable development (Maassen, 2017). Developed nations, having accumulated wealth through the environmental exploitation process of industrialisation, bear a duty for this transition.

As global concerns for sustainability shift, so must our approach to economic policy. Advanced economies must lead global efforts to address the climate crisis and abandon superficial strategies, empowering developing nations rather than oppressing them. Growth-centred ideologies must change, and policymakers must not rely on future innovation to solve present problems. A circular economy must be achieved in time to ensure a future where humanity can develop sustainably. This can only happen if individual stakeholders form viable partnerships and engage in effective collaboration. The planet isn’t waiting; it’s time to take action together.

References

Agbakwuru, V. et al. (2024) ‘The Impact of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Reporting on Corporate Financial Performance’, International Journal of Research Publication and Reviews, 5(9), pp. 3629–3644. Available at: https://doi.org/10.55248/gengpi.5.0924.2710.

Ahmed, Z., Mahmud, S. and Acet, Dr.H. (2022) ‘Circular economy model for developing countries: evidence from Bangladesh’, Heliyon, 8(5), p. e09530. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09530.

Bell, D. (1972) ‘The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism’, Journal of Aesthetic Education, 6(1/2), pp. 11–38. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/3331409.

Biodiversity (2025). Available at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/biodiversity (Accessed: 3 April 2025).

Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism - European Commission (2025). Available at: https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/carbon-border-adjustment-mechanism_en (Accessed: 4 April 2025).

China (2022) World Bank. Available at: https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2022/04/01/lifting-800-million-people-out-of-poverty-new-report-looks-at-lessons-from-china-s-experience (Accessed: 27 March 2025).

Circular Economy Overview (no date). Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/circular-economy (Accessed: 4 April 2025).

‘CIRCULAR-STEP Mobilizing Financing- 4.28.2023_0.pdf’ (no date). Available at: https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2023-04/CIRCULAR-STEP%20Mobilizing%20Financing-%204.28.2023_0.pdf (Accessed: 27 March 2025).

D’Amato, V., D’Ecclesia, R. and Levantesi, S. (2024) ‘Firms’ profitability and ESG score: A machine learning approach’, Applied Stochastic Models in Business and Industry, 40(2), pp. 243–261. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/asmb.2758.

Ecker, S., Ortiz-Juarez, E. and Molina, G. (2023) Growth without gains, UNDP. Available at: https://www.undp.org/blog/growth-without-gains (Accessed: 3 April 2025).

Environmental health impacts (2025). Available at: https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/topics/in-depth/environmental-health-impacts (Accessed: 4 April 2025).

Friedman, B.M. (2006) ‘THE MORAL CONSEQUENCES OF ECONOMIC GROWTH’.

UN Summit Puts Global Spotlight on Land Degradation’. 2024. February 12. https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/un-summit-puts-global-spotlight-land-degradation.

Goswami, U. and Koop, F. (2023) Q&A: COP28 and the 100 billion U.S. dollar climate finance commitment, Clean Energy Wire. Available at: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/qa-cop28-and-100-billion-us-dollar-climate-finance-commitment (Accessed: 4 April 2025).

Kirezci, E. et al. (2020) ‘Projections of global-scale extreme sea levels and resulting episodic coastal flooding over the 21st Century’, Scientific Reports, 10(1), p. 11629. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-67736-6.

Maassen, A. (2017) How three cities put circular economy ideas into practice, Trellis. Available at: https://trellis.net/article/how-three-cities-put-circular-economy-ideas-practice/ (Accessed: 25 March 2025).

Martin (2019) ‘UN Report: Nature’s Dangerous Decline “Unprecedented”; Species Extinction Rates “Accelerating”’, United Nations Sustainable Development, 6 May. Available at: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2019/05/nature-decline-unprecedented-report/ (Accessed: 3 April 2025).

Müller, G. (2024) ‘Climate action that protects the right to development’, SDG Action, 6 November. Available at: https://sdg-action.org/climate-action-that-protects-the-right-to-development/ (Accessed: 3 April 2025).

O’Neill, A. (2024) United States: life expectancy 1860-2020, Statista. Available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1040079/life-expectancy-united-states-all-time/ (Accessed: 3 April 2025).

Öztürk, I. and Özcan, B. (2019) ‘Chapter 11 - Conclusion’, in B. Özcan and I. Öztürk (eds) Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC). Academic Press, pp. 141–143. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-816797-7.00011-4.

Poverty Overview (2024) World Bank. Available at: https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty/overview (Accessed: 3 April 2025).

Statistics Explained (no date). Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Environmental_economy_%E2%80%93_statistics_on_employment_and_growth (Accessed: 4 April 2025).

Sturm, D. et al. (2025) ‘Green light or black flag? Greenwashing environmental sustainability in Formula One and Formula E’, Annals of Leisure Research, 28(1), pp. 116–135. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/11745398.2024.2376754.

Torres, J.M. and Casey, J.A. (2017) ‘The centrality of social ties to climate migration and mental health’, BMC Public Health, 17(1), p. 600. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-017-4508-0.

York, R. (2006) ‘Ecological Paradoxes: William Stanley Jevons and the Paperless Office’, Human Ecology Review, 13(2), pp. 143–147.