Education to develop human capital could act as a key catalyst in climate change adaptation
Careful and deep thought would definitely enable us to answer why some nations have higher environmental sustainability than others. So far, most of the researches have linked the concept of climatic sustainability with economic growth and income level with the recent ones to globalisation, democracy and the quality of institutions. Though the integral connect between the role of human behaviour and the status of sustainability dates back to 1927, no pertinent successful attempt is available to investigate international variations on environmental issues. On global platforms, this issue is debated quite enormously due to the paucity of any universal benchmark that could depict climatic quality per se. The current literature directs usage of carbon emissions, deforestation and ecological footprint as the often-used proxies to quantify climatic deterioration that may serve satisfactory yardsticks, not the sufficient ones for sure.
What remains missing includes various aspects of ecological change i.e. ecosystem protection, resource management and environmental health, all of which have led to the confinement of a topic of such major concern to philosophy and theory. In 2000, the World Bank proposed “genuine savings” (GS) as an appropriate proxy for environmental progress, where the GS rate is estimated as gross domestic savings adjusted for the depletion of natural capital, investments in human skills and depreciation of physical capital. If the GS remains negative for a long period of time, the economy is termed to be unsustainable. Additionally, intelligence is productively combined with economic growth, human capital, health, corruption and the shadow economy till now whereas the influence of intelligence on climate at the macro-level has yet to gain the required attention among academicians.
To overcome the above shortcomings, the Environmental Performance Index (EPI) given by the Yale Centre for Environmental Law and Policy and Columbia University in 2002 is believed to be a much better composite indicator to evaluate comprehensive progress toward ecological sustainability. The EPI addresses the methodological shortcomings of the GS and consolidates 20 indicators in two core policy domains: Protection of human health from environmental damage and protection of the ecosystem.
Further, as per one of the economic theories, intelligent economic agents are more likely to neglect the consumption of natural capital today for higher levels of welfare in the next period. All the economists today have established that externalities (free-rider issues) and public goods are the leading causes of market failure, holding the utmost level of relevance of environmental economics.
As per current researches, it is empirically established that intelligence (in general, proxied by intelligence quotient scores given by Lynn and Vanhanen) may mitigate environmental market failures via social capital as an important aspect of enhancing the attitude of society towards the management of natural wealth. Rather some of the laureates have argued that the social capital is presented as feedback, playing the role of a homeostatic mechanism of keeping the sustainability of economic systems in dynamics. Also, while higher levels of social networks lead to considerable welfare gains for society, there is evidence that intelligence is associated with interpersonal trust and social interconnections that are instrumental in enhancing capacities to solve environmental problems. Moreover, intelligence is negatively correlated with authoritarian regimes since authoritarian systems lack the motivation to adopt environmental policies.
Much said and done, undoubtedly, higher cognitive development scores of nations may converge to aid the better climatic health of a country; of course, after controlling other macroeconomic disruptions that may arise due to variations in per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP), population growth and democracy levels. The impact may remain heterogeneous across nations and groups depending upon the associated stage of development.
Indeed, current studies indicate that educated economic agents are better aware of long-term negative externalities of environmental degradation. The involvement of intelligence may for the time-being provide short-lived happiness by shifting the focus from economic growth (that has historically proved detrimental for environmental sustainability especially in the case of emerging/developing nations). Nonetheless, education to develop human capital could act as a key catalyst in climate change adaptation. Education does more to reduce deaths from climate-related disasters than economic growth as per one of the recent research findings. Education can also deliver the scientific facts about the biggest issue facing young people, something that is being felt by millions worldwide. It equips the youth with the skills to help combat climate change and be part of a green, recovering and positive future. Lastly, the foundation of tomorrow shall positively be laid today.
(The writer is Assistant Professor at University of Delhi)
