Problems Of Recording Environmental Phenomena In National Accounting Aggregates

Is it expedient or possible to modify the content of the national accounting aggregates like GDP so that they reflect also the effect of environmental changes like pollution and noise–this is the question the author tries to answer. He points to some analogies with other national accounting problems, where the basic question is also how far should we go in modifying our measuring scale, the market price, in order to get closer to the measurement of some kind of economic welfare. Reviewing the various possibilities for modifications of the national accounting concepts, the author does not propose any substantial changes. The harm done to the environment as such cannot be measured in monetary terms. The cost of prevention is not a good approximation of the harm done to the environment, since the correlation between these two variables is not strong enough. Nor is the cost of restoration a good measure of the disfunction. Some damages, like noise, lung cancer caused by air pollution, cannot be restored. If–as proposed by some authors–the compensation for the disfunction (e.g. a swimming pool built to compensate for the water pollution) were deducted from GDP, this would not provide a good solution either, since the trouble is the disfunction itself and not the remedying action. (If no swimming pool is built, there is nothing to be deducted?) On the whole, there is no sufficiently sound basis for evaluating the monetary value of environmental damages. The author attaches great importance to getting more information on environmental phenomena. However, he prefers to supplement the national accounting information by a series of physical, chemical, biological, etc., indicators, instead of changing the national accounting concepts themselves.