The moral & environmental consequences of economic growth

The moral and environmental consequences of economic growth

Executive Director at Center for a Sustainable CoastJune 15, 2026

The following commentary centers on compelling information presented in three timely documents, each featuring analysis of interconnected factors that deserve utmost public attention: The Global Justice Report, The State of the Nation Report, and Pope Leo’s Encyclical on Artificial Intelligence.

When economic growth is planned and articles are written about it, there’s scant consideration of the consequences for environmental resources needed to support that growth. To the extent any analysis is done, it’s nearly always limited to near-term case-by-case evaluation. There’s little or no acknowledgement of the cumulative and interactive consequences of a prolonged series of projects affecting the same watershed, lake or river system, wetlands, or aquifer – much less impacts on multi-state wildlife corridors and boundary waters, or international impacts on marine ecosystems, fisheries, crops, and climate.

The prevailing, absurdly simplistic notion of progress rewards decision-makers for seeking profits through fragmented actions that are not held accountable to rigorous systemic evaluation standards. Consequently, conventional methods for measuring the success of development are gravely self-destructive.

Economic development is often promoted using claims of job creation and increased tax revenue, leading authorities to neglect or marginalize facts demonstrating that such activities are often located in low-income or minority communities whose residents already suffer poor environmental conditions that compromise their physical health and cause premature death. Moreover, these habitually under-evaluated claims, multiplied across thousands of projects annually, produce unexamined and unmitigated harms to local, regional, and international resources.

As a result, reputable environmental analysts conclude that current human use of – and impacts upon – ecosystems worldwide exceed their “carrying capacity” (sustainable use) by nearly 75%. This excessive use is called “overshoot.”   

[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_overshoot  ]

“Global ecological overshoot occurs when humanity's demands on nature exceed the Earth's regenerative capacity. It is deeply tied to economic justice, as wealthier nations disproportionately consume global resources while poorer countries bear the brunt of social and climate damages. [6, 7, 8, 9]”

Note: July 30th is Global Overshoot Day. This date marks the point in the year when humanity's demand for ecological resources and services exceeds what Earth's ecosystems can regenerate over the entire year.

Because humans and all other species depend on these ecosystems for life-support and physical health [clean air and water, food supplies, tolerable temperatures, minimal infestations, etc.], degrading and dismantling the natural world is inherently self-destructive. Excessive exploitation of world resources and wealth within the most developed nations threatens systemic economic collapse and environmental ruin, while also impeding the advancement of equitable economic opportunities for impoverished communities and citizens worldwide. 

Propagated by Artificial Intelligence, the grotesque, doctrinaire injustices of these morally-bankrupt exploits recently created the world's first trillionaire. Meanwhile, starvation and disease rapidly spread among millions who lack access to basic necessities.

As a result of the treacherous implications of these abuses, the United Nations, the World Inequality Lab, the Wellbeing Economy Alliance, and others are collaborating to advance policies that support diversified economic opportunities within the sustainable limits of the Earth’s living and non-living resources.

The Global Justice Report asserts that humanity can raise living standards, reduce inequality and keep global heating below a rise of 2-degrees Centigrade, as reported in their comprehensive analysis completed in planning for humanity’s survival.

This report by the World Inequality Lab (WIL) aims to be the most thorough attempt yet to navigate the mega-crisis that is catapulting the world toward environmental breakdown, political extremism, traumatic economic failures, and the degradation of social institutions.

The State of the Nation Report cites parallels with poor performance of the U.S. that starkly contrasts with America’s standing as measured by conventional economic indicators. The United States excels economically and is improving slightly in poverty reduction but lags far behind other high-income nations in mental health, life satisfaction, citizenship and democracy, income inequality,  social unrest, and rates of violence. See attached graphics summarizing blatant contradictions between conventionally measured U.S. economic standing, citizen discontent, and quality-of-life deficiencies disclosed by the report.

Among these poor ratings are America’s low standing in infant mortality, trust in the courts and other public institutions, and growing income inequality.

These problems are also among issues raised in the historic encyclical released by Pope Leo XIV in May 2026. The thrust of his critique warns about artificial intelligence spreading disinformation, including propaganda that facilitates state-sponsored violence disguised as national interests. AI also worsens wealth-concentration that depletes life-support systems while depriving billions of people of basic needs. Online highlights of the Pope’s encyclical include these 3 points:

• Among the risks that AI runs are its potential to “weaken personal creativity and judgment” among its users and to “place heavy demands on natural resources” required by its operating systems.
• AI can be used by those with malicious intent, but “a subtler danger” is presented by misinformation/disinformation “when AI systems present themselves as neutral and objective, [divisively]… reinforcing the stereotypes or ideological bias of their designers and developers.”
• Because of such bias, “we cannot consider AI to be morally neutral.”

To prevent disastrous outcomes, it is imperative that our development strategies are reconciled with both their moral and environmental consequences. This requires holding corporations and investors legally accountable by implementing an innovative framework that serves the common good by honoring the principles of sustainability.