Again in both of the above cases the people of one household class are moving
to another household class. Therefore, by considering the above two impact analyses our main objective is to find out the impact on environmental pollution if the
households move from on household class to another. Now the whole analyses are
described below.
4.1 Poverty Alleviation Impact on Environment
The underlying assumptions behind this analysis are as follows:
1. The poverty alleviation measures are taken separately for rural and urban areas.
2. The poverty alleviation measure will increase the income of the households and
they will move from poor household class to relatively rich household class.
3. There is no rural to urban migration. This implies the rural household will move
within the rural area and the urban households will move within the urban area.
4. As our ESAM multiplier model static, the total population supply is assumed to
be fixed at 2006–07 level in the rural and urban areas. Therefore, the movement
of people from poor household class to rich household class will reduce the
number of poor people in the economy. On the other hand the number of rich
people will be increased in the economy.
5. The average per capita income for each household group is constant. So fall in
population will reduce the total income of the poor household class and the rise
in population will increase the total income of the rich household class.
On the basis of these assumptions, below we have presented an illustrative case
by assuming a certain amount (say 1 lakh) of people are moving from poor
household class to relatively rich household class in the rural and urban areas as a
result of poverty alleviation programme. In this case, 1 lakh people are moving
from RAL class to immediate rich class, i.e. ROL household class in the rural area,
and the same amount of people are moving from UCL to immediately rich USE
household class in the urban area. Now if this happens then on the basis of the
above assumptions the total income (aggregate of all the individuals) of the RAL
and UCL households’ classes will fall and the income of the ROL and USE
households’ classes will rise. Again it is observed from the income-pollution
multiplier matrix that the increase in income increases the total environmental
pollution and the decrease in income decreases the total environmental pollution in
the environment. Therefore, the environmental pollution in the one way will reduce
and on the other way it will raise due to separate rural and urban poverty alleviation
measures. But in this case we will only estimate the net impact on the environmental pollution and the estimated results are given in Table 7.
The data given in Table 7 reveals that the movement between the UCL and USE
household class has the large impact on environmental pollution than the movement
between the RAL and ROL class. For example, let us consider the net impact on
CO 2 emission. The net increase in CO 2 emission will be 2.63 mt if the 1 lakh
The Conflict Between Economy and Environment …
219
to another household class. Therefore, by considering the above two impact analyses our main objective is to find out the impact on environmental pollution if the
households move from on household class to another. Now the whole analyses are
described below.
4.1 Poverty Alleviation Impact on Environment
The underlying assumptions behind this analysis are as follows:
1. The poverty alleviation measures are taken separately for rural and urban areas.
2. The poverty alleviation measure will increase the income of the households and
they will move from poor household class to relatively rich household class.
3. There is no rural to urban migration. This implies the rural household will move
within the rural area and the urban households will move within the urban area.
4. As our ESAM multiplier model static, the total population supply is assumed to
be fixed at 2006–07 level in the rural and urban areas. Therefore, the movement
of people from poor household class to rich household class will reduce the
number of poor people in the economy. On the other hand the number of rich
people will be increased in the economy.
5. The average per capita income for each household group is constant. So fall in
population will reduce the total income of the poor household class and the rise
in population will increase the total income of the rich household class.
On the basis of these assumptions, below we have presented an illustrative case
by assuming a certain amount (say 1 lakh) of people are moving from poor
household class to relatively rich household class in the rural and urban areas as a
result of poverty alleviation programme. In this case, 1 lakh people are moving
from RAL class to immediate rich class, i.e. ROL household class in the rural area,
and the same amount of people are moving from UCL to immediately rich USE
household class in the urban area. Now if this happens then on the basis of the
above assumptions the total income (aggregate of all the individuals) of the RAL
and UCL households’ classes will fall and the income of the ROL and USE
households’ classes will rise. Again it is observed from the income-pollution
multiplier matrix that the increase in income increases the total environmental
pollution and the decrease in income decreases the total environmental pollution in
the environment. Therefore, the environmental pollution in the one way will reduce
and on the other way it will raise due to separate rural and urban poverty alleviation
measures. But in this case we will only estimate the net impact on the environmental pollution and the estimated results are given in Table 7.
The data given in Table 7 reveals that the movement between the UCL and USE
household class has the large impact on environmental pollution than the movement
between the RAL and ROL class. For example, let us consider the net impact on
CO 2 emission. The net increase in CO 2 emission will be 2.63 mt if the 1 lakh
The Conflict Between Economy and Environment …
219