In the 1990s, the discussion about the relationship between economic growth and environmental degradation expanded exponentially (Cole & Neumayer, 2005; Stern, 2003; 2004). Much of this intellectual confabulation revolved around the environmental Kuznets curve, a hypothesis that holds that environmental degradation would increase during an early stage of economic development, eventually reaching the "tipping point" at which improvement in environmental conditions would begin. In other words, the graphical relationship between per capita income and environmental pollution would be represented by an inverted U-shaped curve, drawing direct relevance to the behavior of the Kuznets curve which (originally) theorizes economic inequality and per capita income to show the same relationship, named after Simon Kuznets who hypothesized this relationship in the early 1950s. However, the adapted version of the general model to the ecological framework emerged much later, in the 1990s, along with other growing concerns for the environment such as the development of frameworks such as sustainability. Theoretical Context The origins and early analyzes of the EKC can be traced back to the colossal studies undertaken in the 1990s. Grossman and Krueger's publication "The Environmental Impacts of the North American Free Trade Agreement" in 1991 was groundbreaking in comparing the general Kuznets curve and its relevance in the context of environmental degradation. They attempted to establish that the economic growth potentially resulting from NAFTA would also represent some degree of environmental degradation. However, by focusing on the specific context of Mexico at the time, Grossman and Kreuger were able to establish the presence of the turning point… halfway through the document… and the sustainability framework. The EKC's limited scope in terms of understanding differences in present and future scenarios, environmental capacities and resilience, and social choices and preferences within and between countries makes the path it advocates inherently unsustainable in nature. This further hinders analysis of the tipping point that policymakers are most interested in since the collective tipping point estimated for a given set of countries may or may not hold and may not be socially desirable, even if believed to exist in the first place (Dinda , 2003). Furthermore, the dependence and pressure on technology to constantly keep pace with change provides an unstable basis for sustainability as it offers no guarantee that pollution levels permitted by the EKC are within estimated safety thresholds and are temporary in nature (Arrow et al.., 1995).