The Green GDP includes the value of environmental and natural services and takes into account the costs of pollution, emission of greenhouse gases and depletion of Denmark's natural capital, as well as the gain from investing in increasing the natural capital.
The Green GDP provides an opportunity to highlight the importance of the environment for the economy. By following the development of the Green GDP, one can assess whether and to what extent the economic growth – measured by the growth in the traditional GDP – has occurred at the expense of the environment and climate.
A green GDP
We use GDP – gross domestic product – to measure overall economic activity in society and assess how the Danish economy is doing in general. However, the traditional GDP has been criticized for not taking into account the environmental and climate effects of society's production and consumption. The green GDP does exactly that.
The green GDP values i.a. loss of biodiversity, emission of greenhouse gases and pollution of the air and water environment. The green GDP can therefore help the population and the politicians to assess whether the economic growth has occurred at the expense of the climate and the environment.
But even if environmental and climate considerations are taken into account, the green GDP may well increase in a period when, for example, there have been large emissions of greenhouse gases, if at the same time there has been a large growth in the economy in general. So does it even make sense to include the environment and climate in the traditional economic models? Why not just calculate it separately?
"The green GDP makes it possible to value the environmental and natural assets. In the first step, we calculate physical measures of how much we have depleted of various natural resources and how much we have emitted of various pollutants. That in itself is valuable information. In the next step, we then calculate the costs or gains in monetary terms," says Peter Birch Sørensen and continues:
"This gives us an overall picture of the damages to the environment. The problem with focusing solely on the physical targets for the environmental impact is that there are many different dimensions and aspects of environmental development that can point in different directions. But when we value them in monetary terms, we get an overall picture of which way things are going.”
What are you willing to pay?
The research group has determined the value of the various natural assets by utilizing studies in which a representative group of the population is asked how much they are willing to pay for a specific environmental or climate improvement.
In these kinds of studies, the interview groups are, for example, asked to imagine that the state or their municipality has to decide on the issue, and are then asked how much more they would pay in taxes to get the environmental or climate project completed. And the Danes want to pay. An example: The average citizen would like to pay more in taxes to avoid the extinction of endangered animal species.
In other cases, the researchers have valued the environment by calculating how much it will cost to achieve a politically determined environmental or climate goal.