Richard Black assesses whether the rich are living beyond their ecological means

"If our economies are to flourish, if global poverty is to be banished, and the well-being of the world's people enhanced - not just in this generation but in succeeding generations - we must make sure we take care of the natural environment and resources on which our economic activity depends."

That statement comes not from a save-the-world greenie, but from Britain's Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown, a politician with a reputation for rigour, thoroughness and, above all, prudence. A surprising thing for the man who runs one of the world's most powerful economies to say?

The roots of his speech, given in March last year at the roundtable meeting of environment and energy ministers from the G20 group of nations, stretch back to 1972, at the UN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm.

Hunt through the reams of reports by UN agencies and development groups and you will find that the linkage between environmental protection and economic progress is a common thread. This view assumes that rich societies will invest in environmental care. But is this right? Do things get better or worse as we get richer?

...poor and rich both despoil the natural world for different reasons

Here the Stockholm declaration is equivocal. "In the developing countries," it says, "most of the environmental problems are caused by under-development." So is it saying that economic development should make for a cleaner world? Not necessarily. "In the industrialised countries, environmental problems are generally related to industrialisation and technological development," it continues. So poor and rich both despoil the natural world, but for different reasons. Clearly, richer societies are able to provide environmental improvements which lie well beyond the reach of poorer ones.

Citizens of wealthy nations demand national parks, clean rivers, clean air and poison-free food. They also, however, use far more natural resources. A case can be made that rich nations export environmental problems, the most graphic example being climate change. As countries become richer, they produce more greenhouse gases; and the impact of those gases will fall primarily in poor parts of the world.

Wealth is not, of course, the only factor involved. The average Norwegian is better off than the average US citizen, but contributes about half as much to climate change. But could Norway keep its standard of living and yet cut its emissions to Moroccan or even Ethiopian levels? That question, repeated across a dozen environmental issues and across our diverse planet, is what will ultimately determine whether the human race is living beyond its ecological means as it pursues economic Nirvana.

Fuelling the Future on Radio

Fuelling the Future is a week of special World Service radio programmes assessing global development and its consequences.

Fuelling the future • Fuelling the Future can be heard from 11-18 February. • Visit www.bbcnews.com/energy from 25 January to listen again after broadcast and find out more about the season.

The intersection of energy and policy, production and consumption, are explained in this ground-breaking editorial mix. It is a big story with macro-political ramifications, but it is also an issue that elicits personal views and reactions.

Coordinator of the week of programmes, Commissioning Editor Ruxandra Obreja says: "You canot be neutral about energy, it affects us all. The programmes are informative, but will also delight and surprise." Specially produced news programmes will look at the future of energy from five different locations. Business programmes look at the energy needs and dilemmas of India, and Richard Black anchors science programmes.