Background-
Over the past few weeks, I shifted my focus in studies from the concept of the Anthropocene to the Capitolocene in order to gain better perspective of capitalism’s influence and economic prosperity in relation to environmental degradation (see Labs Six and Seven for more information). In researching various indicators of environmental prosperity or otherwise, in relation to income group and economic status, I have found that more pollutants emitted (my previous sampling measured nitrous oxide emissions) from regions/countries with higher incomes. That being said, I am progressing to an alternative source of information for reference and analyzing: surveys answers compiled on WVS (World Values Survey). The survey provides thousands of responses to various questions regarding values in social and political life, providing the opinions of individuals and priorities globally.
Procedure-
To begin this approach, I used the World Values Survey to pick a sample group to focus on. In order to do this, I chose four countries of different income levels/economic status to compare, based off the respondents of each. After grouping the data representing Haiti (Lower Income), Egypt (Lower-Middle), Russia (Upper-Middle), and Australia (Upper Income) each onto a separate spreadsheet, I selected a single question from the survey to evaluate, V81: ‘Protecting environment vs. Economic growth.’ The survey provided eight options: (-5) Inapplicable, Inappropriate response, Dropped out of survey. (-4) Not asked in survey. (-3) Not applicable. (-2) No answer. (-1) Don’t know.(1) Protecting the environment should be given priority, even if it causes slower economic growth and some loss of jobs. (2) Economic growth and creating jobs should be the top priority, even if the environment suffers to some extent. (3) Other answer.
In order to accurately average the applicable responses, I eliminated any informal or un-applicable responses by transferring any negative responses, and (3) responses, to a sheet separate from current review, leaving me with clean data representative of responses in favor of either economic growth or environmental protection. I then graphed each country’s results on a histogram for visual conceptualization, following with a calculation of the average response and standard deviation of each. With these results, I was able to compile the four countries into a single graph for comparison in order to form a hypothesis regarding societal values: countries of higher income tend to present higher environmental value and awareness, while countries of lower income tend to present a focus on economic growth. My null hypothesis was thus the opposite, that countries of higher income present a focus on economic growth, while lower income countries focus on environmental protections. Being a two-tailed hypothesis (I am measuring one value versus another, rather than a degree of value), the next step was to formulate and conduct a T Test to either justify or discredit the null hypothesis, allowing for another statistical approach to understanding the Capitolocene.
Results-
The four histograms below display the total number of responses collected from each country in regards to the question of prioritizing environmental protections or economic growth. The first column displays the number of votes for (1): Protecting the environment should be given priority, even if it causes slower economic growth and some loss of jobs. The second column displays the number of respondents in favor of (2): Economic growth and creating jobs should be the top priority, even if the environment suffers to some extent.
Using the above responses, the averages and standard deviations of each was graphed and compiled on the below graph. Through this form of visualization for comparison, I noticed a linear decrease in support of economic growth being the priority (or a linear increase in environmental protection values).
From here, I calculated a final P-value through comparison of each country in the form of a T Test. My results from reject the null hypothesis and its gleam of significance, thus supporting my original hypothesis that with higher income comes a higher environmental protections awareness.
Discussion-
In comparing the results of this research and the survey responses to that of the previous lab, as well as the basic concept of the Capitolocene and economic growth’s adverse relationship with environmental protections, I am surprised as to results, but may find possible bias in it. In Lab Seven, I found that countries of higher incomes produce more nitrous oxide emissions, and also have high levels of tree cover loss. This would present a story in which economic gain trumps environmental. However, Lab Six, in congruence with these new results, display a linear increase in environmental protections and health with increased income., rejecting the Capitalocene and capitalism’s negative influence on environmental health. From my own understanding and reference to these past three labs, as well as the overall theory described by the concept of the Capitolocene, I find that while higher income countries, and thus economic growth, does produce negative externalities on environmental health, these same countries, in turn, have more awareness for such, and have the means to try and reverse their own caused detriments. Lower income countries, meanwhile, are more focused on economic growth and survival than on preserving biodiversity and environmental protections. However, due to the lack of development thus far, they also are producing many less externalities on the environment.