The global economic slowdown is bad news for most sectors, but the one upshot might be the environment. As factories close, consumption declines, and people look for thriftier ways to live, there’s a corresponding decline in greenhouse gases emitted and natural resources depleted. But although prosperity necessarily lends itself to greater damage on the environment, it also helps seek solutions to eradicate that damage. So in the grand scheme of things, will the recession hurt or hinder environmental efforts?

Temporary Emission Drop

One of the easiest ways for a country to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and comply with levels set by the Kyoto protocol is to have a major economic crisis. This is why many countries in the former Soviet Union hold the record for emission declines—their industries collapsed. Similar reductions are happening worldwide, though to a lesser extent. A recent report by the Environmental Integrity Project found that, partially due to the economic slowdown, carbon dioxide emissions from U.S. power plants dropped for the first time in years. Although some of the decrease can be traced to milder weather and improvements in energy efficiency, the 3 percent decline in emissions from 2007 to 2008 is largely attributed to factories closing, decreases in manufacturing, and other declines in energy consumption.

It’s not just the United States that has seen a drop in emissions; the global downturn is reducing emissions worldwide. In Europe, carbon dioxide emissions dropped by 6 percent in 2008; China’s power plants have been putting out less energy and emissions since last fall, the first drop in over a decade.

However, although these drops are good news for global warming, they aren’t exactly dropping in the mode the Kyoto intended. Instead of carbon caps, improved efficiency, or alternative energy—long term solutions—these drops will be temporary. As consumption goes back up, as it inevitably will, emissions will continue to rise. The problem here is that as emissions drop and goals are met, countries may be less likely to look for alternatives.

Fewer Miles, Fewer Emissions

As individuals and companies cut back on expenditures, travel is one place that takes a cut. That’s why the International Air Transport Association expects to reduce its emissions by around 8 percent in 2009. Although airlines are looking into alternative fuels for their flights and improvements in energy efficiency, the main decrease will simply be because fewer people are flying.

And fewer people are driving. Although gas prices are relatively low right now, last year’s summer spike in prices resulted in a 6 percent decrease in gas consumption. Less driving means less pollution and more people opting for public transportation, riding bikes, or shortening the distance they’ll travel for vacations. Although the demise of the SUV makers isn’t a good thing for workers, the decreased sales in SUVs means fewer gas guzzlers on the road. Large cars are largely becoming a thing of the past.

While these are definite environmental benefits, there are drawbacks to having fewer dollars to spend on transportation. People are opting to keep or repair inefficient cars rather than spring for a new fuel-efficient vehicle or hybrid, which tend to be more expensive than non-hybrids. 

Reuse and Reduce

Without less disposable cash to throw around, consumers are also looking for ways to reuse and make do with less. This is inherently better for the economy, since our endless consumption uses energy, natural resources, and contributes to the mounds of trash in our landfills.

The new light on thrift has lead to an increase in bartering; Craigslist’s barter section grew by 100 percent between January 2008 and January 2009. Thrift stores have also seen increases in business.

People are also looking for ways to cut back on food costs, and many of these options are net positive for the environment. For instance, seed sales are up this year, as more people opt to grow their own food. This means fewer miles food has to be transported and less reliance on large agribusiness, which is heavy on pesticides and fossil fuel fertilizers. Similarly, as people cut back on meat consumption due to its cost, this will also reduce emissions, since meat production uses much more fuel, water, and resources than growing grains and vegetables. And as people tighten budgets, they become more aware of food waste. 

Looking for ways to reduce costs at home almost always results in environmental benefits. Whether it is swapping out regular light bulbs for CFLs, getting low-flow showerheads or toilets, or turning the heat down, with less money, more people are keeping an eye on bills and reducing their impact on the earth. The size of our homes might also be changing, as people can no longer afford McMansions, which cost a lot to heat, cool, light, and maintain. And while some cities have put caps on big building prior to the economic crunch, the slowdown in new construction also means less sprawl. Since these large houses are often plopped down in poorly designed communities that are isolated from public transportation and services, long commutes and a car-dependent lifestyle might decline during the downturn.

Where to Stash the Trash?

There are major environmental drawbacks during down times, however. One of the most acute is the decreased need for recycled materials. Normally, recycling works because large producers, like China, buy up our recycled paper, turning it into packaging for goods they ship back to us. However, as manufacturing decreases, the demand—and price—for recycled paper drops and recycling programs see a decrease in demand, often to the point where unwanted recyclables pile up. Same goes for scrap metals and other building materials—when no one is building, the demand for these products declines and there is less incentive to recycle.

The economic downturn could also result in people putting off large, environmentally friendlier decisions, like putting solar panels on their house. For instance, Japan, which recently introduced solar subsidies, reported that their program lured in far fewer users than it had anticipated. And as people opt for cheaper goods—be it food or consumer goods—these are likely to be produced in less environmentally friendly ways than more expensive goods that manufacture with an eye on quality and sustainability.

Similarly, the financial turmoil diverts resources away from sustainability. There is less money to be invested in novel technology to reduce emissions. With governments strapped for cash, they’re less likely to fund basic research that might result in novel green technologies. Corporate sustainability programs are often the first things to be cut.

However, it really shouldn’t come down to the environment versus the economy, but rather, the environment and the economy. Almost everything we do that’s good for the environment is immediately or ultimately good for the economy, like new green jobs, improvements in efficiency, and longer lasting goods. And the cost of not doing anything about global warming, dwindling water supplies, resource depletion, and similar environmental problems will make our current economic ones seem trivial.