The reason that green GDP is appealing to me is that it challenges the perception that economic prosperity is directly at odds with environmental sustainability. Though I can’t comment on its relevance in an academic setting, I believe that the widespread use of green GDP in place of GDP in the media could change the way we talk about the economy. Instead of judging an administration’s economic policy based solely on growth, the public could also consider the protection of natural capital.

I understand that green GDP may be difficult to measure, especially considering that some natural capital, like a sustainable ecosystem, clean air, etc. is not tradable on a market. However, the fact that there isn’t one predominant method of measurement does not diminish its power in shaping public opinion. While many nations have indeed improved their air and water, most of the developing world does not fit this trend. I was surprised to find that, when China measured its own green GDP in 2010, it found that environmental degradation wiped about a third of its growth that year. (Future Chinese green GDP measurements have remained classified)

That being said, I was completely unaware that the US has generally improved its water and air quality over the past few decades. I think that green GDP (however it can be calculated) could be a valuable tool to shine the spotlight on both our successes and failures in managing our environment. Anyway, thank you for your reply and for providing so much food for thought.