Part 2
1. I believe that developing countries have the right to exploit forests (and other natural resources) as Europe and U.S. did to increase their economic well-being. Considering the importance of global climate change, I also acknowledge that there is a growing need to countries to adapt and use technologies that lessen our impact on the environment. Developing countries do not have the financial resources to undertake such kinds of research and development.
I believe that if rich countries are willing to share renewable energy technologies with developing countries then it would be in the developing countries best interest and moral and ethical duty to stop exploiting forests. I believe that given a choice developing countries would not choose to exploit forests and other natural resources, they do so out of need.
2. Countries such as China and India are now on the forefront of the environmental debate concerning the level of emissions from the two countries. As these two countries are undergoing a rapid development stage the amount of pollution in both countries continues to increase. “China’s rapid development, often touted as an economic miracle, has become an environmental disaster. Record growth necessarily requires the gargantuan consumption of resources, but in China energy use has been especially unclean and inefficient, with dire consequences for the country’s air, land, and water.” (Vig, pp 309)
The expectation that developing countries must engage in equal participation as developed countries in climate change issues is unfair in my opinion. “Developing countries point to Europe’s destruction of its forests during the industrial revolution and the widespread cutting in the United States in the nineteenth century. Why then should developing countries be held to a different standard than the developed one?” (Vig, pp 297)
Economic development entails the reduction of poverty and the ability of a nation to increase per capita income and improve the livelihood of the people. It would be unfair for industrialized countries to expect developing nations to place more emphasis on reducing emissions especially when industrialized nations are largely responsible for the current global climate problems.
Additionally, since industrialized countries have the financial capability to conduct research into sustainable practices and renewable technologies, developing countries should expect developed nations to share such technologies. In my opinion, some sort or mutually agreed upon technology transfer system would be helpful in ensuring renewable energy technologies are being put to good use.
Should we allow the developing nations to exhaust the remaining resources simply because people in other countries used a large amount of resources also to build their nation? If you say yes then that logic should mean that the following question would be answered yes also. Should we allow other countries to enslave Africans to build their economy just because it was done here in the US? I do not think it is right to justify actions based upon the "eye for an eye" principle. Unfortunately there are many ecosystems that are in severe danger of overexploitation and the sooner that the overshoot is eliminated, the sooner that the global climate change problems can be mitigated.
ReplyDeleteHi Zank,
ReplyDeleteI respectfully disagree with the two questions you have posed. Enslaving people and using natural resources to better the livelihood of citizens are not related in terms of logic. Saying yes to the first does not mean yes to the second. Another example of this would be the following two questions; Is it OK for someone to go shoot deer in the forest for fun? and Is it OK for someone to go to schools around America and shoot children for fun? Saying yes to the first does not mean you automatically say yes to the second. If you don't want developing countries to use their natural resources, what alternative do you suggest for them? I also mentioned in my post that given a choice, developing countries would choose not to exploit natural resources. Also, once provided with an alternative it would become the developing countrys' moral and ethical duty to use the alternative rather than consume natural resources. At this point, developed countries can expect developing countries to not use natural resources because they have been provided with a viable alternative.
For developed countries to simply expect developing countries to not use natural resources without providing them with alternative means to achieve development is unfair. As mentioned before, the point I tried to make in my response to question 1 was that instead of expecting developing countries to not exploit natural resources to increase their economic well-being, developed countries should give them a choice. Some kind of agreement in terms of renewable energy technology transfer and education in developing renewable energy technologies would be beneficial in my opinion.
Farhan, what benefit does a rich country truly net by sharing their technology, as you suggest. The markets structure under which the globe operates does not exhibit this virtue. It is ideal, but not realistic. There is always a cost-benefit aspect involved, no matter how genuine the transaction is. As we have seen this could happen, but it doesn;t enough on a level taht would create true changes in the climate. I don't deny thatthere are some willing players that would particpate to this degree, but on the whole scope it seems unlikely, but I would agree that if it would happen, it would generate vast changes.
ReplyDeleteHi elprezidente2016,
ReplyDeleteWhat benefit does a poor country truly net if it allows its people to suffer and submit to hunger and possible death if it cannot use the resources in front of it because the rich countries squandered theirs because they were short sighted?
If the current global market structure does not exhibit the virtue of sharing the technology(s) that is in question, then shouldn't that market require a change instead of the expecting the poor nations to suffer even more? Honestly, I am not even asking for the entire market to change, just be a little flexible, because to effectively combat climate change we need to look beyond just making a profit. How ironic that the countries that put the world in this mess now want to sell and make money on technologies to get us out of it.
Here is the situation we are in: The rich countries became rich by enslaving people and squandering their natural resources. The result is that their short sightedness has resulted in the rich countries being primarily responsible for the current global climate change crisis.
The poor countries, many of which suffered at the hands of the rich, are now expected to stop using their natural resources by the rich who actually put everyone in this mess.
Looks like we're letting the guilty parties run away scott free. You mentioned "what benefit does a rich country truly net by sharing their technology, as you suggest." The benefit would be to do the right thing for their wrongful actions that have resulted in the suffering of millions of innocent people around the world. The benefit would be that by actually sharing these technologies rich countries would be doing what really should be done to ensure that poor countries have no reason to pollute and exhaust their natural resources thereby effectively combating global climate change.
I agree with you that the scope of this happening is unlikely; I am simply stating what actually needs to be done to solve the problem. No one in their right mind would simply stop using natural resources that they need to survive because it is causing climate change. They are using it because they need it and to poor countries living is more important that worrying about humanity 100 years from now.
sorry about my typos. :)
ReplyDeleteWow, Zank... Comparing environmental abuse to specific human abuse, such as slavery, is irresponsible at an academic level, and kind of scary at an individual level.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with what Farhan suggests. It is well within the scope of self-interest as well as long-term self preservation for wealthy nations to provide technological AND financial support to developing nations to net a better natural environment for us all. The simple fact is that developing nations prioritize the ability to put food in mouths and protect against rampant disease and natural disasters over lofty idealistic sustainability goals.
If the established nations have largely succeeded in these short-term goals and now want to move on to long-term issues such as climate problems, then they need to provide some reasonable accommodation so that developing nations can be part of the solution. But to expect people in third world countries to care about polar ice caps melting when they are wondering where tomorrow's meal will come from is just asinine.