General Questions
It seems to me that the nature of having a world with independent nations leads to the resulting condition that all nations have the "right" to act in their own best interest. However, if the world's goal is to attempt reversal of environmental damage done by developed nations and to preserve some level of environmental quality for future generations, then it seems that no nation should have the "right" to abuse resources that would otherwise have been available to other nations or future inhabitants of the planet. These views are at two drastically different ends of the scale, though. When considering the current state of the world's population, economy and political environment, it seems likely that a middle course should be chosen, giving consideration to both allowing developing countries to grow and prosper, while putting in place regulations for all nations in regards to environmental sustainability.
There seems to be an important distinction between (1) the implementation of policies and regulations that aim to protect and preserve the environment in the future and (2) the efforts required to repair damage already done to the environment by now-industrialized nations. When considering the future policies aimed at environmental protection and preservation, I think that equity is a vital part of the process, since all nations will eventually be affected by the global climate. However, if it is the repair of already-existing environmental damage that is being considered, it seems only fair that the industrialized nations that both caused the damage and have the economic resources to take on the majority of the responsibility.
Because industrialized nations have set the example of exploiting the environment's resources in order to gain economic success, it is only reasonable to expect that other developing nations would want to follow that same course. This is the precise reason why equitable standards for all new development and industrialization are needed prior to any more environmental damage being done. It may not be enough to simply encourage developing nations to behave in an environmentally responsible way. Instead, industrialized nations must set the standard by accepting responsibility for past damage and supporting sustainable ways of allowing developing nations to become prosperous. Similarly, developing nations should be able to rely upon industrialized countries for beginning to remedy the existing pollution issues, since they were the root of the problem in the first place.
For the perceptive of a developing country, the developed world is hypocritical telling them to do as we say, but not as we ourseleves personally did to develop and get rich.
ReplyDeleteI think a middle course is a valid approach, but I would contend that the developing world might feel entitled to some type of compensation to justify limits being imposed against them being the same did not apply in the past. I know the past cannot be undone but the do as I say not as I do approach is never well received.
I think that something is lacking from arguments that have been made in this vein: developed countries cannot legally force developing countries to do anything. International institutions lack the force and any penalties levied by industrialized nations would do more harm than good. Thus, I agree with you, the best way to help developing countries is to lead by example. Further, industrialized nations are obtaining breakthroughs in technology, and a uprising of talented, intelligent youth, that make "going green" easier. Nations with such resources should share them with developing nations to help deplete actions that might cause harm to the environment.
ReplyDeleteI really liked the approach you took in your blog. I completely agree that no nation has the inherent "right" over natural resources, especially when they affect the whole of the population. I argued, however, that the as a country, we do not have the "right" to tell them that they must conserve their resources after we have built an empire of exploiting our own, and others for that matter.
ReplyDeleteI found this post and the comments very interesting. In the recent years the US has felt they have the right to tell other countries what to do even though we are experiencing defficiencies of our own. As far as environmental issues are concerned it is important to lead by example and perhaps offer assistance. We will all benefit from a better environment, and perhaps offer monetary incentives to meet the needs of the country. Or forgive debts in exchange for acting on new policy.
ReplyDeleteAlicia
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJoanna,
ReplyDeleteVery compelling post once again.
I liked how you made the distinction between preservation and protection policies and policies of repair. When speaking of those countries that have caused the majority of environmental harm, it is important to think about equity when considering reform. I agree, the global climate is a "global" problem. Thus, equity is increasingly important in finding solutions. The industrial countries should be forced to see what they are causing the rest of the world. Perhaps their mindset would change if the tides were turned and they were the ones being affected by environmental harm in other countries.
Joanna,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your blog and your perspective on the issue. I also agree that climate issues are a global problem. I like how you made a clear distinction between polices and repair. I agree that there is a huge difference between the two and that they need to be clearly defined. I also agree that industrialized nations are primarily responsible for current conditions and that developing nations should be able to rely on them to remedy the situation.
Joanna,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your analysis of the fact that industrialized nations have already exploited their environmental resources in order to gain economic prosperity. We can expect that developing nations will want to do the same. Industrialized nations should consider the difficult stance of... "what's mine is mine, and what's your's is negotiable".