环境治理已经成为经济活动的重要内容，实现经济的长期可持续发展至关重要。Ueta & Mori(2007)利用东亚国家过去几十年的快速工业化来讨论这一问题，研究者提出“绿色增长”等概念是为了平衡经济发展与环境保护之间的冲突而产生的。环境库兹涅茨曲线理论表明,运动可能显示一个负担在短期内对经济增长但最终可能被证明是更有益的长期这提出了一个类似的问题,发生在今天的巴黎协议,在私人参与国家将超过成本的潜在好处在短期内削减碳排放。尽管长期的社会效益将是积极的每一个国家,经济劣势仍将阻止国家最受协议加入因此,为了解决这个冲突,和促进环境保护的考虑经济成本,采用规则是很重要的海洋时,政府政策的水平。传统上，人们更可能基于以单个实体为中心的财务会计方法来评估公共政策的结果，而不是覆盖其他利益相关者。如果采用社会和环境核算方法，污染和气候变化的长期成本可能超过从化石燃料行业获得的短期收益(Sylvia等，2018)。然而，在现实生活中应用海洋规则来分析一项环境政策的成本和收益要困难得多。
Environmental governance has already become a vital consideration for economic activities, and it is important to achieve sustainable growth in the long-term. Ueta & Mori (2007) discussed the problem using the rapid industrialization of East Asian countries for the past several decades, and the researchers proposed that “green growth” and many other concepts had been invented to balance the conflicts between economic development and protection of the environment. The environmental Kuznets curves theory shows that the movements may display a burden for economic growth in the near term but may eventually prove to be more beneficial in the long-term This presents a similar problem as that occurs with today’s Paris Agreement, where the private costs to a participating country would exceed the potential benefits of cutting the carbon emissions in the short-term. Though the long-term social benefits would be positive for every country, the economic disadvantage would still discourage countries that are most affected by the agreement from joining in Thus, to solve this conflict, and promote environmental protection given the consideration of economic costs, it is important to adopt the rules of SEA when making policies on the government level. Traditionally, one would be more likely to evaluate the outcomes of a public policy based on the financial accounting method that centres around a single entity, rather than covering the other stakeholders. If the social and environmental accounting approach is taken, the long-term costs from pollution and climate change may exceed the short-term benefits that could be harvested from the fossil fuel industries (Sylvia, et al., 2018). However, it would be much harder to apply the rules of the SEA in real life settings to analyse the costs and benefits of an environmental policy.