Ch06b

This is the old United Nations University website. Visit the new site at http://unu.edu

Whether the achievement of environmental sustainability is theoretically compatible with GDP growth depends, therefore, on the manner of calculation of GDP and on the relative size of Figure 2.2's sector C expenditures which do or can restrain GDP growth) to sectors A and B (which represent policies or expenditures which do not). Whether it is practically compatible depends on it being politically possible to address government and market failures.

The question of the relative sizes of sectors A, B and C is still open to conjecture, and is at the heart of the debate about sustainability and growth. This has been characterized by often heated conflict between pessimists - such as Meadows et al, authors of Limits to Growth (1972) and Beyond the Limits (1992) - and optimists, epitomized by Anderson (1992) and the World Bank itself (1992).

The viewpoint of the former is well expressed by Tinbergen and Hueting:

Saving the environment without causing a rise in prices and subsequent check of production growth is only possible if a technology is invented that is sufficiently clean, reduces the use of space sufficiently, leaves the soil intact, does not deplete energy and resources... and is cheaper (or at least not more expensive) than current technology. This is barely imaginable for our whole range of current activities.... From the above it follows that saving the environment will certainly check production growth and probably lead to lower levels of national income.

Tinbergen and Hueting 1993:55-6

Tinbergen and Hueting clearly believe sector C to be the one most often relevant to environmental policy. The World Bank, though not unambiguously, believes that sectors A and B have more to offer. Thus: 'The evidence indicates that the gains from protecting the environment are often high, and that the costs in foregone income are often modest if appropriate policies are adopted.' (World Bank 1992:1) The gains from

'win-win' opportunities on the one hand, and only modest costs on the other, could on this analysis result in both a 3.5 times rise in world output and 'better environmental protection, cleaner air and water, and the virtual elimination of acute poverty.' (ibid:2) Such quotes illustrate a clear perception of the dominance of sector A and B opportunities, but the World Bank's report ends its overview with a classic statement envisaging sector C type costs: 'Accepting the challenge to accelerate development in an environmentally-responsible manner will involve substantial shifts in policies and priorities and will be costly. Failing to accept it will be more costly still. '(ibid:24)

The evidence to date would seem to bear out the World Bank's predominantly optimistic position. Pearce (1993) reviews a number of studies and projections which show relatively little impact on growth from environmental policy. An OECD study from 1985 reports:

The main conclusion which emerges from these results is that the macroeconomic effect of environmental policies is relatively small.... Furthermore, it is important to recall that these small effects were registered during a period (the 1970s) of peak pollution control activity, when efforts were directed not only at limiting ongoing pollution, but also at cleaning up the backlog caused by the neglect of the environment during the 1950s and 1960s.

OECD 1985, quoted in Pearce 1993:103

However, environmental policy in the future is going to have to be far more stringent than that in the past, which by no means succeeded in curbing environmental degradation, and given that the past legacy of environmental damage has by no means been adequately addressed. Brown et al (1993) identifies the US as facing clean-up costs of $750 billion for hazardous waste sites and $200 billion for nuclear weapons manufacturing facilities (Brown et al 1993:10) Such clean-up problems face all industrial countries to some extent; the costs involved are almost certainly sector C (constraining growth) rather than sector B costs.

Jorgenson and Wilcoxen (1990) found that environmental regulation reduced the US GDP growth rate by an average of 0.19 per cent pa between 1973 and 1985. Jorgenson also finds that the increase in energy prices in the 1970s was a major cause of the reduction in US GDP growth in the 1970s and 1980s Jorgenson 1990:85). A similar decline in GDP growth, projected into the future, emerges from several models of the effects of introducing a carbon tax (reviewed in Boero et al 1991). In the nine studies surveyed, GDP losses ranged from 1 per cent by 2050 to 7.5 per cent by 2075.

Not all carbon tax simulations show a negative effect on GDP of applying such a tax, however, Barker et al's (1993) modelling of both and EC- and OECD-wide tax shows a small GDP increase in both cases. Ingham and Ulph (1991) similarly find that imposing a carbon tax leads to an increase in economic activity. The Barker et al result is due to the way the revenues from the tax are recycled back through the economy by offsetting reductions in VAT or income tax. Pearce (1991:940) has written of the possibility of achieving a 'double dividend' by replacing distortionary taxes (eg on labour or capital) with a carbon tax which is itself correcting the distortion from an environmental externality. In the Ingham and Ulph result 'in the short run output falls, and this induces considerable scrapping of equipment which leads to lower costs and prices, and output being higher in the longer term than in the case where demand is determined exogenously. In the extreme case, output growth rises from 2 to 4.4 per cent.' (Ingham and Ulph 1991:198-9)

Several modelling projections have also found negligible negative effects on GDP from future environmental policies. Thus Barker and Lewney (1991) have combined a carbon tax designed to reduce UK CO emissions back to 1990 levels by 2005, a fourfold rise in industrial pollution abatement expenditures by 2000, and an intensified water cleanup policy. This reduces GDP in 2010 by less than 1 per cent. Similarly the Netherlands National Environmental Policy Plan (NEPP) projected the decrease of a number of emissions and waste discharges by between 70 and 100 per cent, and a doubling of environmental expenditures: by 2010 GDP had grown to 95 per cent above its 1985 level, in contrast to a 98 per cent growth with a base case of unchanged policy. These effects are very small compared to the environmental benefits achieved.

It is not easy to judge between these different projections of different macroeconomic impacts from environmental policies. First there is the validity of the models themselves. Far-reaching environmental policies of the kind envisaged in NEPP are likely to make structural changes to the economy, perhaps invalidating the econometric relationships from which the projections are derived.

Second, with regard to the carbon tax, it is possible that complementary government initiatives to encourage energy conservation and efficiency, and investment in clean energy technologies, would cost relatively little and significantly increase the energy elasticities on the basis of which the costs of a carbon tax are calculated, thereby reducing the cost of achieving any given CO₂ reduction target. Jackson (1991) provides evidence that the energy market is far from perfect. He finds that out of 17 technological possibilities for the reduction of CO₂ emissions, eight could be implemented at negative cost on the basis of current prices, saving a total of 165 million tonnes of CO₂ per year by 2005, or 24 per cent of UK 1991 emissions. On this analysis the UK could exceed the Toronto target for CO₂ emissions (20 per cent reduction from 1988 levels by 2005) and save money.

Whatever the balance of empirical evidence, both optimists and pessimists accept the foregoing analysis about the environmental effects of continuing present patterns of economic growth. Both acknowledge that reducing the material intensity or environmental impact of economic activity is possible. In this they both differ from certain fundamentalist Greens, eg Irvine 1990. Moreover, both argue that this will only happen if proactive governmental policies are put in place, an opinion which differs from that of free market economists such as Simon (1981), Simon and Khan (1984) and Bernstam (1991).

The major difference between the two views is that Anderson and the World Bank project win-win scenarios up to about 2030, in which strong environmental policy protects the environment, but helps growth as much as it hinders it, so that growth proceeds largely unconstrained. Meadows et al agree that growth may be able to continue until 2030, but only at the cost of great environmental degradation, which precipitates catastrophe soon after. They perceive that effective environmental policy will constrain growth.

Both sides, however, agree that without effective environmental policy, growth will cause appalling environmental damage before 2030. It would seem sensible therefore to concentrate on this consensus in order to get such policy implemented whether one is optimistic or pessimistic about the impacts on growth or the longer term forecast. There is little sign of such implementation at present. The continuing existence of, for example, financial subsidies that are grossly economically inefficient as well as environmentally damaging, highlights the great danger that it will prove politically impossible to realize in practice the opportunities for environmentally sustainable growth, so that environmental degradation will proceed until such growth becomes impossible.

CONCLUSIONS

It is clearly theoretically possible for GDP growth and environmental sustainability to be compatible. Environmental sustainability is affected by the economy's throughput of energy and materials; on a finite planet there is obviously a limit to this throughput. GDP measures value-added. The relationship between value-added and material throughput is variable and can be altered by structural economic change, substitution between factor inputs, and more efficient use of the same input. These changes are obviously crucially dependent on technological developments.

Once environmental sustainability has been achieved, its maintenance requires a rate of diminution in environmental impact per unit of value added (environmental impact coefficient or environmental intensity) that is the same as the rate of growth of that value-added. Achieving environmental sustainability in the first place, especially with projected rates of population growth, calls for a substantial one-off improvement in environmental intensity. Putting the two together suggests that, if world GDP growth is to be maintained at modest levels over the next 50 years, the environmental sustainability is to be achieved in the same period, technology must reduce environmental intensity overall by nine tenths.

This is a formidable challenge. Those who believe it to be a practical possibility are united with those who do not in arguing that it can only be approached by determined government policy. The market has an important role, but it will need to be informed, stimulated and guided by market-based and regulatory instruments emanating from government. While the introduction of these instruments will be in the interest of greater social welfare in the long term, they will run counter to currently powerful vested interests. Their introduction will depend on the existence
of democratic political institutions sufficiently robust to legislate for the wider good.

Where these instruments involve changes to government policies that are economically inefficient as well as environmentally damaging, they can promote GDP growth as well as environmental sustainability at zero cost. Where they require investments for environmental sustainability, sometimes these investments will also yield a net financial return; sometimes the environmental gain will only be achievable at net financial cost. Whether GDP growth (as currently calculated) as well as environmental sustainability will emerge from the application of these instruments depends on the relative availability of 'win-win' to 'trade-off' opportunities.

The empirical evidence to date is not decisive on this point. Past environmental policies do not seem to have had undue negative impact on GDP growth, but they are an unreliable guide to the more stringent policies needed in the future. Past policies have tended to be based on regulatory instruments, which are theoretically less efficient than market based mechanisms, but it remains to be seen whether such mechanisms can either be introduced at the required level or will work as efficiently as predicted. There are many examples at the micro-level of 'win-win' possibilities for individual companies or across whole policy areas (eg energy efficiency/conservation, rural development), but again, it remains to be seen whether they can be realized economy-wide in practice.

The compatibility or otherwise of GDP growth and sustainability has the following implications for welfare. If they prove compatible, and both growth and environmental quality are higher than in the base case, then welfare unequivocally rises (assuming no negative impacts on welfare's other components). If moves towards sustainability decrease the rate of growth but this remains positive, then welfare again unequivocally rises, but may fall relative to the unconstrained base case, depending on the relative weights in welfare of the environmental gains and the production foregone. If moves towards sustainability decrease the level of GDP, then welfare may rise or fall, again depending on the relative weights in welfare of the environmental gains and the production foregone. If inadequate environmental policy means that environmental degradation continues, and this causes the GDP level to decline, then welfare unequivocally declines. This, of course, is the condition of unsustainability.

To summarize, it is clear that as far as environmentally sustainable GDP growth is concerned, there is everything to play for but the going will be exceptionally tough. In the short term it is likely that it will be easier to achieve GDP growth than to start moving systematically towards environmental sustainability. Giving such a move top short-term priority is probably, therefore, a necessary condition to achieving environmentally sustainable GDP growth in the future. It is certain that the currently dominant business-as-usual approach, going for GDP growth with a few environmental add-one, will not address the gathering environmental crisis, some evidence for which was presented at the beginning of this paper. The most open question of all is whether the political will can be found to go beyond this minimalist approach before the scale of environmental disruption makes rational response increasingly difficult.

APPENDIX

Calculations of required reductions in environmental intensity to achieve sustainability, using the Ehrlich equation, I = PCT.

Where subscript 1 indicates the quantity now, subscript 2 indicates the quantity in 50 years' time; superscript 1 indicates high income countries, superscript 2 low and middle income countries (the 'Third World'), according to the World Bank's classification and using data from World Bank 1992, and superscript T indicates the whole world. Using the assumptions for population growth and sustainability, we have:

I₁ = 2 x I₂ for sustainability
P₁ ^T=P₁ ¹\+P₁²
P₂^T = P₂¹ = P₂² = 2 x P₁^T;
population growth = P₁^T

P₂¹ =P₁¹ +0.05 P₁^T;
P₂²=P₁²+0.95 x P₁^T

PA = 816.4 million;
pa = 4146 million;
P₁^T = 4962 million
(exe former USSR)

P₂¹ = 1064 million;
P₂² = 8860 million;
P₂^T = 9924 million
C₁¹ = $19,590;
C₁² = $840
P₁¹ C₁¹ = $15.99 x 10¹²;
P₁² C₁²= $3.48 x 10~2;
(P₁C₁)^T = $19.47 10¹²
I = (PC)^T.

Where (PC) ^T = P¹ C¹ + P²C² = Total global consumption.

Using this formulation and the earlier assumptions about population and sustainable environmental impact, the environmental implications of five different development paths can be analysed.

1. No growth in population or consumption:
T must be reduced by 50%

Growth in population, and, with regard to consumption:

2. No growth in consumption: C₂¹ = C₁¹, C₂² = C₁²
P₂¹ C₂¹ = 1064 x 19590 x 106 = $20.8 x 10¹²
P₂² C₂² = 8860 x 840 x 106 = $7.44 x 10¹²
(P₂C₂) = P₂¹ C₂¹ + P₂² C₂² = $28.2 x 10¹²

T₂ = 1/2 x (P₁C₁)^T/(P₂C₂)^T x T₁ = 1/2 x (19.47)/(28.2) x T₁ = 0.35 x T₁

So T must be reduced by 65%.

3 Growth only in the South: C₂¹ = C₁¹, C₂² = 4 x C₁²C₂² = $3360
P₂¹ C₂¹ = 1064 x 19590 x 106 = $20.8 x 10¹²P₂² C₂² = 8860 x 3360 x 106 = $29.8 x 10¹²
(P₂C₂)^T = P₂¹ C₂¹ + P₂² C₂² = $50.7 x 10¹²
T₂ = 1/2 x (P₁C₁)^T/(P₂C₂)^T x T₁ = 1/2 (19.47)/(50.7) x T₁ + 0.19 x T₁

So T must be reduced by 81%

4. Growth only in the North: C₂¹ = 4 x C₂¹, C₂² = C₁²
Cal = $78360
P₂² C₂² = 1064 x 78360 x 106 = $83.4 x 10¹²
P₂² C₂² = 8860 x 840 x 106 = $7.44 x 10¹²
(P₂² C₂² )^T = P₂² C₂² = P₂² C₂² = $90.84 x 10¹²
T₂ = 1/2 x (P₁C₁)^T/(P₂C₂)^T x T₁ = 1/2 (19.47)/(50.7) x T₁ + 0.19 x T₁

So T must be reduced by 89%

5. Growth in the North and South: C₂¹ = 4 X C₁¹ , C₂² = 4 X C₁²
C₂¹ = $78360
C₂² = $3360
P₂¹ C₂¹ = 1064 x 78360 x 106 = $83.4 x 10¹²
P₂² C₂² = 8860 x 3360 x 106 = $29.8 x 10¹²
(P2C2)T = P2~C2i + P22C22 = $113 X 10¹²
T₂ = 1/2 x (P₁C₁)^T/(P₂C₂)^T x T₁ = 1/2 (19.47)/(50.7) x T₁ + 0.19 x T₁

So T must be reduced by 91%

REFERENCES

Ahmad, Y. El Serafy, S & Lutz, E (1 989) Environmental Accounting for Sustainable
Development World Bank, Washington DC

Anderson, D (1992) 'Economic Growth and the Environment' Background Paper for the World Development Report 1992, World Bank, Washington DC

Ayres, R & Walter, J (1991) 'The Greenhouse Effect: Damages, Costs and Abatement' Environmental and Resource Economics vol 1, pp 237-70

Barker, T & Lewney, R (1991) 'A Green Scenario for the UK Economy' in T Barker (ed) (1991) Green Futures for Economic Growth: Britain in 2010 Cambridge Econometrics, Cambridge

Barker, T. Baylis, S & Madsen, P (1993) 'A UK Carbon-Energy Tax: the Macroeconomic Effects' Energy Policy vol 21, no 3 (March), pp 296-308

Beckerman, W (1974) In Defence of Economic Growth Jonathan Cape, London

Beckerman, W (1991)'Global Warming: a Sceptical Economic Assessment' in D Helm (ed) (1991) Economic Policy Towards the Environment Blackwell, Oxford, pp 52-85

Bernstam, M (1991) The Wealth of Nations and the Environment Institute for Economic Affairs, London

Boero, G. Clarke, R & Winters, L (1991) The Macroeconomic Consequences of Controlling Greenhouse Gases: a Survey HMSO, London

Broome, J (1992) Counting the Cost of Global Warming White Horse Press, Cambridge

Brown, L et al (1991) State of the World 1991 Earthscan, London

Brown, L, Flavin, C & Kane, H (1992a) Vital Signs W W Norton, New York/London

Brown, L et al (1992b) State of the World 1992 Earthscan, London

Brown, L et al (1993) State of the World 1993 Earthscan, London

Business International (1990) Managing the Environment: the Greening of European Business Business International, London

CEC (Commission of the European Communities), 1992a Proposal for a Resolution of the Council of the European Communities, Towards Sustainability: a European Community Programme of Policy and Action in Relation to the Environment and Sustainable Development, vol 1, Commission of the European Communities, Brussels

CEC (Commission of the European Communities), 1992b Executive Summary, Towards Sustainability: a European Community Programme of Policy and Action in Relation to the Environment and Sustainable Development, vol 2, Commission of the European Communities, Brussels

Chambers, R (1992) 'Sustainable livelihoods: the poors' reconciliation of environment and development' in P Ekins & M Max-Neef (eds) (1992) Real-Life Economics: Understanding Wealth Creation Routledge, London, pp 214-29

Cline, W (1991) 'Scientific Basis for the Greenhouse Effect' Economic Journal 101 (July 1991), 904-19

Cline, W (1992) The Economics of Global Warming Institute for International Economics, Washington DC

Conroy, C & Litvinoff, M (eds) (1988) The Greening of Aid Earthscan, London

Daly, H (1992) 'From Empty World to Full World Economics' in R Goodland, H Daly & S El Serafy (1992) Population, Technology and Lifestyle: the Transition to Sustainability, Island Press, Washington DC

Ehrlich, P & Ehrlich, A (1990) The Population Explosion Hutchinson, London

Ekins, P (1993) "'Limits to Growth"' and "Sustainable Development": Grappling with Ecological Realities' Ecological Economics, vol 8, pp 269-88

Ekins, P (1994a, forthcoming) 'The Rationale for Adjusting the National Accounts for the Environment' in W Van Dieren (ed) Towards a Sustainable National Income, a Report to the Club of Rome

Ekins, P (1994b, forthcoming) 'The environmental sustainability of economic processes: a framework for analysis' in J van den Bergh & J van der Straaten (eds) Concepts, Methods and Policy for Sustainable Development: Critiques and New Approaches Island Press, Washington DC

Goodland, R & Daly, H (1992) 'Ten Reasons Why Northern Income Growth is not the Solution to Southern Poverty' in R Goodland, H Daly & S El Serafy (1992) Population, Technology and Lifestyle: the Transition to Sustainability Island Press, Washington DC

Harrison, P (1987) The Greening of Africa Paladin, London

Holdren, J & Ehrlich, P (1974) 'Human Population and the Global Environment' American Scientist vol 62 (May-June), pp 282-92

Houghton, J. Jenkins, G & Ephraums, J (eds) (1990) Climate Change: the IPCC Scientific Assessment Oxford University Press, Oxford

Hueting, R (1986) 'An Economic Scenario for a Conserver Economy' in P Ekins (ed) (1986) The Living Economy: a New Economics in the Making Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, pp 242-56

Hueting, R Bosch, P & de Boer, B (1991) Methodology for Calculating Sustainable National Income Netherlands Central Bureau of Statistics, Voorburg

Ingham, A & Ulph, A (1991) 'Carbon Taxes and the UK Manufacturing Sector' in F Dietz, F Van der Ploeg & Van der Straaten (eds) (1991) Environmental Policy and the Economy Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 127-239

Irvine, S (1990) 'No Growth in a Finite World' New Statesman and Society, 23 November

Jackson, T (1991) 'Least-Cost Greenhouse Planning' Energy Policy, January/ February, pp 35-46

Jacobs, M (1991) The Green Economy Pluto Press, London

Jenkins, T (1990) Future Harvests Council for the Protection of Rural England, London and World Wide Fund for Nature, Godalming, Surrey

Jorgenson, D (1990) Productivity and Economic Growth Harvard Institute of Economic Research, Harvard University, Cambridge MA

Jorgenson, D & Wilcoxen, P (1990) 'Environmental Regulation & US Economic Growth' RAND Journal of Economics, vol 21, no 2, Summer

Kosmo, M (1987) Money to Burn? the High Cost of Energy Subsidies World Resources Institute, Washington DC

Lecomber, R (1975) Economic Growth versus the Environment, Macmillan, London

Leggett, J (ed) (1990) Global Warming: the Greenhouse Report Oxford University Press, Oxford/New York

Leipert, C (1989)'Social Costs of the Economic Process and National Accounts: the Example of Defensive Expenditures' The Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics, vol 3, no 1, pp 27-46

Lutz, E (ed) (1993) Toward Improved Accounting for the Environment World Bank, Washington DC

McCormick, J (1989) Acid Earth Earthscan, London

Meadows, D Meadows, D, Randers, J & Behrens, W (1972) The Limits to Growth Universe Books, New York

Meadows, D Meadows, D Randers J (1992) Beyond the Limits Earthscan, London

Mishan, E (1967) The Costs of Economic Growth Staples Press, London

Mishan, E (1977) The Economic Growth Debate: an Assessment George Allen & Unwin, London

MOHPPE (Ministry of Housing, Physical Planning and Environment) (1988) To Choose or to Lose: National Environmental Policy Plan MOHPPE, The Hague

Myers, N (1986) 'Tackling Mass Extinction of Species: a Great Creative Challenge' XXVlth Horace M Albright Lecture in Conservation, University of California, Berkeley

Nordhaus, W (1991) 'To slow or not to slow: the economics of the greenhouse effect' Economic Journal, 101 Quly 1991), pp 920-37

OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) (1985) The Macroeconomic Impact of Environmental Expenditure, OECD, Paris

OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) (1991a) The State of the Environment OECD, Paris

OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) (1991b) Environmental Indicators OECD, Paris

Pangare, G & Pangare, V (1992) From Poverty to Plenty: the Story of Rahegan Siddhi Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage, New Delhi

Pearce, D (1991) 'The Role of Carbon Taxes in Adjusting to Global Warming' Economic Journal vol 101, pp 938-48

Pearce, D (1993) Economic Values and the Natural World Earthscan, London, pp 95-104 (Appendix 1: 'Environmental Policy as a Constraint on Economic Growth)

Pearce, D & Atkinson G (1992) 'Are National Economies Sustainable?: Measuring Sustainable Development' CSERGE Discussion Paper GEC 92-11, University College London

Pezzey, J (1992) Sustainable Development Concepts: an Economic Analysis World Bank Environment Paper no 2, World Bank, Washington DC

Repetto, R (1985) Paying the Price: Pesticide Subsidies in Developing Countries World Resources Institute Wasington DC

Repetto, R (19865) Skimming the Water: Rent-Seeking and the Performance of Public Irrigation Systems World Resources Institute, Washington DC

Repetto, R (1988) The Forestfor the Trees? Government Policies and the Misuse of Forest Resources World Resources Institute, Washington DC

RS & NAS (Royal Society & National Academy of Sciences) (1992) Population Growth, Resource Consumption and a Sustainable World Royal Society, London
and National Academy of Sciences, New York

Sadik, N (1991) The State of the World Population 1991 UNFPA (UN Fund for Population Activities), New York

Schmidheiny, S (with the Business Council for Sustainable Development) (1992) Changing Course: a Global Business Perspective on Development and the Environment MIT Press, Cambridge MA

Simon, J (1981) The Ultimate Resource Martin Robertson, Oxford

Simon, J & Kahn, H (1984) The Resourceful Earth: A Response to Global 2000 Basil Blackwell, Oxford

Solow, A (1991) 'Is There a Global Warming Problem?' in R Dornbusch & J Poterba (eds) Global Warming: Economic Policy Responses MIT Press, Cambridge MA, pp 7 -28

South Commission (1990) The Challenge to the South: the Report of the South Commission Oxford University Press, Oxford/New York

Tinbergen, J & Hueting, R (1993) 'GNP and Market Prices' in R Goodland, H Daly & S El Serafy (eds) (1993) Population, Technology and Lifestyle: the Transition to Sustainability Island Press, Washington DC, pp 52-62

Turner, K (1992) Speculations on Weak and Strong Sustainability CSERGE Working Paper GEC 92-26, CSERGE, University of East Anglia, Norwich

WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development) (1987) Our Common Future (The Brundtland Report) Oxford University Press, Oxford/New York

Woodwell, G (1990) 'The Effects of Global Warming' in Leggett 1990, pp 116-132

World Bank (1992) World Development Report 1992 Oxford University Press, Oxford/New York

WRI (World Resources Institute) (with UNDP and UNEP) (1990) World Resources, 1990-91 Oxford University Press, Oxford/New York

WRI (World Resources Institute) (with UNDP and UNEP) (1992) World Resources, 1992-93 Oxford University Press, Oxford/New York

Contents - Previous - Next