Politics, News & Issues >
Environment (Other)
RSS FeedIs it fair to ask underdeveloped countries to "go green" when many advanced industrial countries owe their success to destructive environmental practices?
Title endorsed in part by:
Results so far:
| Yes | 48% | 288 votes | Total: 594 votes | |
| No | 52% | 306 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesThe world's resources are the common heritage of mankind and should therefore be protected for generations to come. It is important for advanced Industrial countries who have expended thousands of dollars on destroying the environment, over the years, for their own selfish gain, to help prevent the same destruction from taking place in underdeveloped countries and help them to understand the value of "going green."
Most undeveloped countries have extremely poor environmental situations. Pollution is unrestricted and there are usually countless environmental problems that are not addressed by the governments concerned. The creation and enforcement of environmental regulations in poor countries can sometimes end in disaster if there is a choice between buying food and having a clean environment. Feeding the population will always take president.
Rich, developed countries often take advantage of the problems in third world countries by dumping hazardous waste, building industrial plants which emit pollution and carrying out mining excavations in ecologically fragile areas. Some transnational companies that produce chemicals that would be considered far too dangerous for use in their own countries find a market for their products in the undeveloped countries.
In addition to problems that are created by development and industrialization, poor countries also suffer environment difficulties that are caused by poverty and war. The United Nations and other international organizations have studied ways in which to prevent foreign companies from dumping waste in developing nations by making them pay for the clean up in the Third World environment.
Shouldn't undeveloped countries learn from the mistakes made by the richer nations in the world?
Let's look at a few areas in which the Third World should, for the benefit of health and livelihood be "going green" and being conservation conscious. Fishing. A large portion of the populations in undeveloped nations depend on fish as their only source of protein. The destruction of the ecosystems in which fish thrive could mean the destruction of human populations in these areas.
In February 2006, the World Conservation Union, at a United Nations assembly working group called for the halt in "illegal and destructive fishing of the high seas." Participants at the meeting emphasized the need for more scientific research in the High Seas, noting that bottom trawling was causing huge damage to the natural sedimentary resources at the bottom of the sea.
An example of how communities in less developed countries can be helped to protect their own marine resources is the Tanga Region in Tanzania. The Tanga region is the most northern coastal region of Tanzania and supports a number of ecologically important and diverse habitats. The population thrives on fish as one of the main staples in their diet. A 1987 study showed that this extremely fragile ecosystem had been substantially damaged as a result of dynamite fishing. A debate followed as to whether this area should fall under the World Conservation Union/ Great Barrier Reef Marine paradigm for its management and "very survival". The local people are being helped with conservation programmes on how to successfully maintain the vital balance between harvesting the fish whilst taking great care of their breeding grounds.
Another global "hot spot" in the developing world is the Wallacea region in Indonesia. This is an area of the highest diversity of species primates and other fauna and flora. Conservation International are helping with conservation programmes in the area and have expanded their scientific role to the community. They are also bringing in conservation expertise and help with funding.
Finally, one of the most emotive conservation issues in the world today, the world's treasured Rain Forest. The Raid Forest borders many undeveloped nations and we are losing them rapidly and before we can appreciate their true value. They once covered 14 % of the earth's land surface and now they cover a mere 6% and these could be decimated within the next four decades. It's a tragic fact that one and a half acres of rain forest are lost every second. Destroyed because the value of rain forest land is considered as only the value of its timber by short sighted governments, multi nationals and land owners. As the rain forests vanish, so do cures for life threatening diseases. 25% of Western pharmaceuticals are derived from rain forest ingredients.
The indigenous people in these fragile ecosystems have lived in harmony with nature for centuries. If their way of life is threatened, it is very likely that they could turn on the environment. The Amazonian Indians who numbered in their millions 500 years ago, now amount to a mere 200,000. With their destruction has also gone many years of accumulated knowledge of the medicinal value of rain forest species. When a medicine man dies in the rain forest a "library of knowledge" burns down. The tribe and the world looses thousands of years of irreplaceable knowledge about medicinal plants.
When one considers what the result would be if under developed nations chose not to go the "green route", one would very likely come to the conclusion that our time on this wonderful earth of ours is nearing its end.
Acknowledgement: Rainforest facts; The World Conservation Union; The International Union for Conservation.
Learn more about this author, Glenda Thompson.
Click here to send Author comments or questions.
No
Is it fair to ask underdeveloped countries to "go green" when many advanced industrial countries owe their success to destructive environmental practices?
My father used to say, "Son life is not fair," and he often pointed out that fairness doesn't necessarily mean that the one who has less gets more. Often, in the real world, it may very well mean that the one who has more will have to take less.
This question brings on a sad laugh when you consider it seriously. Just what does going green mean. For those of us in the industrialized world, it means buying a hybrid car, turning down the heat, using bio-fuels. It might mean taking public transportation rather than driving. It could be that we walk the 4 or 5 blocks to the store rather than drive. For the more aggressive it could mean installing a solar power system, or possibly a high tech wind mill. From the industrial perspective it can mean anything from making operations more efficient to installing multi million dollar stack scrubbers to clean our plant emissions.
But what about underdeveloped countries? From the individual perspective you might have to look hard to find a car. Turning down the heat may mean burning a few less buffalo chips. Walking to the store is a given, and travel beyond ones town or village is already unheard of, except on rare occasions when you ride an overstuffed bus or train along with a multitude of others.
Industrially speaking, the economics of changing fuel sources or spending millions of dollars on efficiency studies is not feasible. The very process of making things more efficient has probably already been exercised to the degree that it can be within the available resources. The very idea of spending millions of dollars to install a stack scrubber only to have it languish through lack of maintenance is laughable, considering that it would be impossible to keep it up once installed and would likely bankrupt the company just to purchase it.
As with everything in the world, the issue is not really about fairness, it's about power and survival. It is wrapped up in politics and international economics. It is tied to world trade agreements and access to world markets. And it is directly related to who had the economic power to dominate.
The issue of going green, on the other hand, is a question of appearances. In reality, I believe that it is should be a question of what makes sense. Where do you get the biggest bang for the Carbon footprint.
Have you ever asked yourself who the real polluters are in the world. You might harbor a suspicion that rich countries are up there somewhere, but you might also mitigate that suspicion by telling yourself that we are doing the most to cut emissions as well.
It the latter were true, our President would not have had an issue with signing the Kyoto Agreement. It is interesting that many underdeveloped countries signed.
Scientists from the US Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory have compiled a fairly impressive and comprehensive set of figures on the subject of Carbon footprint. This information is available from:
http://www.ucsusa.or g/global_warming/sci ence/each-countrys-s hare-of-co2-emission s.html . I recommend that the reader acquire a copy and look it over.
Based on their numbers, here is a list of the top 5 Carbon emitters in the world.
Per/Capita Ranking
1 - The United States at 1,446,777,000 tons, or about 5.37 tons per person.
2 - Australia at 83,688,000 tons, or about 4.63 tons per person
3 - Saudi Arabia at 73,098,000, or about 3.88 tons per person
4 - Canada at 111,723,000 tons, or about 3.76 tons per person
5 - North Korea at 69,412,000, or about 3.09 tons per person
Of those countries listed, only North Korea could be considered a truly underdeveloped country, though some might make a case for Saudi Arabia.
On a pure Carbon emissions perspective the top 5 offenders are:
1 - United States
2 - China
3 - Russia
4 - Japan
5 - India
Of those countries, again, only one, India, might be listed as underdeveloped, though China may qualify as emerging.
How does this compare to the economies of those countries
The United Nations has compiled extensive demographic information, which is freely available from: http://unstats.un.or g/UNSD/Demographic/p roducts/socind/inc-e co.htm
Their Database provides the following per/capita GDP figures:
US = $43,562
Japan = $34,661
Russia = $6,877
China = $2,055
India = $784
It appears that the number one polluter in the world, the United States of America, also enjoys the biggest share of the fruits of that status. It might be interesting to consider just how much of the polluting industry in underdeveloped countries is owned and operated or directly influenced by the US and Japan. Both countries outsource production of millions of products to China, Korea and other emerging or underdeveloped countries. Japan actually outsources automobile manufacturing to the US.
This begs a few questions such as:
Just who's footprint is it anyway. Do the US or Japan take the hit for products that add to the GDP of their countries, that are produced in factories in other countries.
And who should ultimately be responsible for cleaning up factories that are located in underdeveloped countries, The nations where they are located or the countries that enjoy their output and profit.
That the answer to the initial question is clearly: No, it is not fair to ask underdeveloped countries to carry the responsibility and expense of going green. It would be much more fair to ask that the biggest polluters in the world commit to getting their environmental acts together before pressuring those who have a much smaller impact and are less able to afford the cleanup.
It would be fair for developed nations to provide financial, technological and physical assistance to underdeveloped countries. At least where it makes sense, and does not negatively impact the economies and ability to survive of those countries and their people.
In the end, this is a question of survival. For some of the earths inhabitants, survival is a short term, close to home issue. For others it is a responsibility for the future. One man may choose to take the bus rather than drive, to promote a longer term solution while another man may choose to clear an acre of rain forest in order to be able to farm a crop that will feed his family. Those who have more need to try to understand and help those who have less. If not, none of us may survive.
Learn more about this author, Kevin Dorning.
Click here to send Author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Environment (Other)
- What is more important: Alternative fuels or affordable food?
- Should the banking industry be nationalized?
- Can NASA technology spin off developments help clean up Earth's environment?
- Does the Clean Air Bill in the US contribute effectively to environmental needs?
- Is environmental "sustainability" achievable?
