Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedIs it fair to ask underdeveloped countries to "go green" when many advanced industrial countries owe their success to destructive environmental practices?
Results so far:
| Yes | 48% | 351 votes | Total: 737 votes | |
| No | 52% | 386 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesWe Are All in This Together
Whether a developing or a highly-industrialize d nation, each is responsible for the future health of its people and the planet. The crisis that we as humanity face is not confined to one set of borders, nor will any one nation be able to stave off its effects without cooperation of a kind never before attempted. Therefore, it is fair. But what is "fair" in this context?
What Is "Fair"?
The United States, the country producing the most pollution, has, at present, the most powerful military and is a recognized leader in many technical fields. America is able, with the harnessed political will of its citizenry, to use its expertise in drawing down pollutant levels by "greening" many of its daily activities. This, in the view of much of the world, would be an appropriate step to take.
Fairness seems relative when we examine the impact of major life changes on those whose resources are very limited, in fact nearly nonexistent. For millions living in eastern Africa, a foremost concern is the daily struggle for life. Amid civil wars, drought, and decades-long agricultural mismanagement, common people are simply starving to death. Many of them cannot join the "go-green" movement until they can engage in some discipline outside of remaining alive.
Equally troubling when we look at the probabilities of global climate change in the near term, China and India, two of the world's most populous nations, are moving rapidly into their own industrial revolutions. With the increase in greenhouse gases that their manufacturing and transportation sectors will produce, one or the other will soon overtake the pollution levels of the United States, with similar effect on their region and as-yet-unmeasured effect on the world's climate.
What Will Work?
Fairness is always a good criterion to examine, but, as is evident from the discussion preceding, it will not give legs to the massive and cooperative energies that must be harnessed in order to save us from our own folly. Evidence is mounting that more than simple agreements on paper, or promises for two decades in the future, will be required.
Recent actions by Great Britain and The Netherlands give hope that solutions are actually coming into being right now. Before his departure from the British prime minister's office, Tony Blair indicated that England would pursue a stricter course than mandated by their participation in the Kyoto Accord in greenhouse gas controls. The government of England now stands firmly behind efforts to cut carbon emissions and to save energy in government and private buildings and industry.
Likewise, The Netherlands, innovators in science since the sixteenth century, have marched to the fore with efforts in wind- and water-powered electrical generation, photovoltaic research, and building design. Their work will be translated into worldwide "green" progress as the technologies are transferred and their impact is felt in other regions of the world.
Obviously, it is important that governments fully support technology improvements in the fight to slow or stall global climate change. Private researchers can and do start their own projects in this area, but only the resources of entire nations will produce results that have the best chance of lowering our global risks. Climate change is no one's private problem; all of us are being/will be affected as our weather patterns become less familiar and more deadly.
Political Action Is Needed to Return "Fairness"
To be fair to all in a society as large as Earth's, stronger partners must begin the work and help weaker partners to protect their people and their way of life. Fairness must include the right to live, first of all, and afterward its meaning must broaden to encompass the means to protect the entire race, that is, all of humanity.
We do not yet know and who knows whether we ever will the shape that climate change will take in just ten years? Ten years mark the life of our smallest children. Are we willing to forgo essential services for them simply to maintain our separateness?
Earth needs many more activists, people who decide to tackle a huge problem and who will urge their governments to lend money and personnel to the projects that can save us all. Ordinary citizens must recognize that fairness to all demands that they contact their governments and cry out for money, for laboratories to be built and used, for representatives of the state to fall in behind the best and brightest they can find, in order for all to live.
It is fair to involve everyone in the talks; it is better to demand that they join in the lifeline, before it's too late.
Learn more about this author, Jon Dainty Sr..
Click here to send this 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.ucsu sa.org/global_warmin g/science/each-count rys-share-of-co2-emi ssions.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 this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Environment (Other)
- Are we over regulating our environment?
- What is more important: Alternative fuels or affordable food?
- Will technology spare the earth?
- 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?
