GEO Brasil - UNEP

Seroa da Motta (2002) deals with this matter by making
evaluations on pollution and the use of natural resources
associated to consumption patterns related to different
classes of income groups. To achieve these conclusions,
he based his studies on coefficients of industrial pollution
intensity (organic material, inorganic, particle and sulfuric
related materials), use of fertilisers in agriculture, vehicle
gases in urban transport (CO, HC and NO 2
), domestic use
of water and generation of domestic sewage. These
coefficients are applied in domestic use, related to the 1995-
1996 period, of ten income class groups varying from the
lowest one, from 0 to 2 minimum wages, up to the highest
one with domestic income over 30 minimum wages. The
results achieved permit us to show the conflict between
equity and environmental control and suggest relevant
political matters.
Table 1 shows that in 1995 the rate of 10% of the highest
income group to the 50% poor homes in Brazil was 2:6.
This difference provides us with a clear picture of the
dimension of income concentration in Brazil where 10% of
the richer homes retain almost three times higher than the
poorest 50%.
Seroa da Motta (2002), based on pollution estimate of charge
as described in the table for each income class group, also
determines the same rate of inequality for each type of
pollutant. These results, also shown in the table, tell us the
following:
a) in the case of pollution produced at the same rate as
the population, the degradation concentration rate
would be 0:2, so the estimated rates indicating figures
much above this rate show a certain difference. As far
as pollution is concerned, this rate remains between
1:0 and 2:3. However, the rate is found to be much
higher in industrial consumption and transportation,
where effect-income and effect-technology are higher
than in the use of fertilisers;
b) in cases of domestic use of untreated water and
production of non-collected sewage, the rate between
the rich and the poor is only 0:2 and 0:1, respectively.
This is justified by fewer sanitation means in the poorest
population levels and because water demand is less
flexible in relation to income. This means that, when
we deal with pollution directly affecting people, the
concentration is less unequal. If we consider that the
poor have less income power to defend themselves
from disease, this difference becomes even more
significant;
c) although pollution production is quite concentrated,
its concentration estimates are always less than
income. The rich are able to save part of their income
and are than able to consume a smaller part and acquire
lesser polluting goods (for example, cars) and live in
more adequate sanitation areas; and
d) due to this income concentration and the pollution of
the rich, an environmental control policy could also
concentrate on the same. Even more so pollution
charges could be stipulated, according to the pollutant/
consumer payment principle. Although this occurs as
the loss of efficiency, considerable control levels could
be reached and could even exempt the poorest
population and concentrate on the richest.
It is quite difficult to make an analysis of well being through
a comparison of negative effects of degradation and positive
control for each income group. The previously described
study only reveals the significance of the equity matter in
environmental control policy. The balance between
environmental subjects, economic efficiency and equity
remain a crucial challenge, for sustainability.
anexo 2
383