Sunday, March 28, 2010

Assignment 5: Developing vs. developed nations

Do developing nations have a right to exploit forests?

The simple answer to whether developing nations have a right to exploit their own resources for economic gain is yes. However, reality isn't so much about the right to do something as it is about whether the exploitation is a good policy. Current problems in developed nations, as well as some impoverished nations that failed to capitalize on resources, suggest it is not. Billions and billions of dollars are easily spent annually in the United States to clean up the effects of ignoring the environment while pursuing economic outcomes. This suggests that economic pursuits that ravage the environment also come with a high price tag. However, if pursued simultaneously, nations can avoid costly clean up efforts.

Among the largest hurdles in tackling exploitation is the messenger. Developed nations, such as the United States and the UK, are guilty of sacrificing the environment to get ahead, and the case of rain forests, are some of the largest importers of timber, contributing to degradation in developing nations. Also, one need look no further than Haiti to see the costs of environmental degradation.

What expectations should industrialized nations have for developing nations in the climate change debate?
Different expectations for industrialized vs. developing nations was the major contributor to the U.S. Congress' refusal to sign the Kyoto Protocol. The resolution against ratification suggested that the treaty could result in "serious harm to the United States economy" (Selin & VanDeveer, 2010, 275). It disagreed that industrialized and developing nations should have different targets.

I reject the stance by the Congress. My personal feeling is that the United States knows changes need to be made, and it should lead by example. However, we've let Europe take on that role. EU emissions are now lower than in 1990 and are half that of the United States (Selin & VanDeveer, 2010). While there should be some expectation of non-industrialized nations to work to slow global warming, even in aggressive pursuit of economic gains, it is the already industrialized and high polluting nations that bare responsibility for current emissions. The U.S., for example, still has per capita emissions rates that are four times the amount of China's per capita emissions rates.

In addition, we have the means to change whereas other countries do not. "Developing countries typically have fewer resources to adapt to a changing climate than industrialized countries" (Selin & VanDeveer, 2010, 280). Because of this disparity, developing nations likely will need and expect financial support to meet climate-change reduction goals. If industrialized nations want the actions by these countries to be successful, they will need to contribute monetarily to the efforts.

1 comment:

  1. I agree that Congress was wrong in believing that all nations should be held to the same targets. However, I disagree that the US should be a leader in all respects of environmental policy. The reality is that each nation has differing constraints that gives them unique advantages allowing for each to lead in the environmental struggle in different ways.

    I also agree that the industrialized nations have a responsibility to assist less developed nations to encourage environmentally responsible growth, but the resources expended need not only be monetary. There is much knowledge, I believe that can be provided to reveal cost-effective alternatives and technology that can be used to take advantage of these alternatives.

    ReplyDelete