by Ron Whyte

Created on: March 05, 2008   Last Updated: October 12, 2011

My first impression is to argue a yes vote although not for the reasons you may expect. We must first be reasonable to the understanding of individual countries just as we do to the global condition.

It is not reasonable to suggest to an underdeveloped country to "go green" out of the gate when they are having difficulty feeding their poor or they are barely surviving internal wars or natural catastrophes such as monstrous tidal waves. To ask these nations to go green would be to slap the poor for being poor.

I am not a staunch environmentalist nor am I akin to the Global politics, which tend not to mend but to tear at each party until one side gives up or at least makes a compromise. I am however very much in favor at looking to the future and thinking of others who will be affected by our actions.

The question suggests many so-called advanced countries owe their success to destructive environmental practices; this begs the question or should I say description of an advanced' country. In my opinion, if these so-called countries were so advanced they wouldn't have the difficulties they do now with the many problems they face in their general humanistic' rights and issues let alone their inability or their desire to do the right thing environmentally now.

We must stop taking the easy route to get the job done! So many environmental destructive issues were not started only as a cost-saving effort although it would suggest it would be the greater leverage, in many cases it simply was easier and the thought of who gets hurt down the road likely was never considered.

History has shown us in all too many examples how cutting corners initially can cost massive amounts to rectify in future cleanups. If we had considered and not ruled out the cost of future repairs or integration of new developing technologies might a cure, many things could or would be different. Many assuredly should have been done differently.

Hindsight is always brought up in times of trouble but I believe much of it can be avoided if we consider future cost. Many times there are cheaper more cost effective alternatives in construction and developmental ways, which are also Greener', but are rejected because to do so would require something that is not in place' and so the easy standard' is taken instead. I have also noted an alarming ignorance to the human costs of such decisions. By this I am referring to the cost of farming out work to cheaper groups or nations and the cost of human safety. These days much of what is too costly or dangerous here is shipped out as a cost-savings measure to foreign countries where these concerns are a low priority but is the job loss at home considered in the calculations? And I'm not even going to get into the who's wheels get greased' paper jungle of hidden corporations and who benefits' dark corner of deceit, but do not think this is not a factor or forget its power of decision-bending.

In conclusion, I don't think it reasonable to suggest an underdeveloped country go green within the same contents or rather up to the same standards as an advance country, this would be unfair and often unrealistic. If on the other hand a developing country considers the cost of retrofitting and or upgrading today's easy solutions while development continues, then tries to do their best with what they have both economically and socially to go green with what they have, at least they are ahead of the game for the future.

If we had done so while we were evolving, we would be far better off then we are now.

Learn more about this author, Ron Whyte.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.