Title endorsed in part by:
from river traffic and foreign building materials which has lead to scarcity of fish, the main diet in the region. Other environmental catastrophes include six pipeline ruptures since the construction began in 2001, leading to gas leakage, but one of the many and most immediate environmental impacts of the project. Other impacts include invasions on a social level such as disease, prostitution, alcohol and substance abuse and influx of foreign cultural values. Do the US Environmental Standards apply to these intrusions? Indigenous communities fear what the 'outside' is bringing in: influences of 'westernised' culture and new ways of life, changes and values that are radically new and overwhelming to the indigenous people, supposedly compensated by the providing tools and substances they have never needed before. These communities fear losing their culture and freedom for the price of gas, oil and consumerism. They are right to question: what will happen in the future? Once the gas oil and commerce has expired, what will happen then? Developments and mining of natural resources builds an inevitable 'road of no return' to the environment, causing irreversible damages on fragile ecosystems. Are these footprints compensated by the changes they bring?
The Amazon rain forest is by no means a single victim to suffer from development violations. Nor are the invasions of cultural and ethical values upon the Amazon indigenous communities alone in their wreak. Everyday, globally we build something bigger, better and more powerful: energy stations, mining resources and precious metals/stones, clearing land for greater transport and motorways or agricultural production. Each industry contributes to damages and changes worldwide. The US environmental laws favour projects which help to empower a developing country, such as Peru, but they also overlook the devastation caused by these practices. The financial gains are of higher importance and the underlying motive of such developments is not charity. So we cannot trust U.S standards as a single and ethical. The role of U.S Environmental Standards is unsatisfactory. The perspective of all parties involved, including indigenous communities, must be taken into account. Diligence and a conscientious effort to maintain high standards and prevent damages and spills could have an entirely different outcome to such projects. The apathy that is currently in place is not acceptable.
In Peru, perhaps the best solution is to reach a compromise.
Below are the top articles rated and ranked by Helium members on:
Necessity and Neglect: Making Multinationals Accountable for What Matters
The enforcement of strict environmental standards
by Linhah
The title of this article might better be Is God Truly Dead? To begin with, the United States has no environmental standards.
The application of U.S. law to American citizens visiting foreign countries is something of a difficult question that is
If there is one place on the planet earth that must be protected and safeguarded, it is the South and Central American rain-forests,
by Eve Redstone
Ever since Sting brought it to world attention the plight of the Amazonian rainforest has been an international concern.
View All Articles on:
Should US environmental standards apply when multinational companies develop the petroleum resources of fragile ecosystems such as Peru's Amazon?
Add your voice
Know something about Should US environmental standards apply when multinational companies develop the petroleum resources of fragile ecosystems such as Peru's Amazon??
We want to hear your view.
Write now!
Cast your vote!
Click for your side.
Featured Partner
The National Pollution Prevention Roundtable (NPPR)
The National Pollution Prevention Roundtable (NPPR) is a national forum that promotes the development, implementation...more
hide