Should Poor Developing Countries Give A Hoot About Going Green?
Understandably, developing countries face unique challenges in addressing concerns related to the environment. Apart from the environment, poor developing countries have more pressing and immediate problems that oftentimes present themselves so forcefully that politicians are forced to make too many compromises, particulalrly on environmental issues.
But simply ignoring “going green” will indeed destroy the base of natural resources that developing countries need for sustainable economic, social, and political prosperity.
“For most, emission reduction is not a viable option in the near term. With income levels far below those of developed countries and per capita emissions on average just one-sixth those of the industrialized world developing countries will continue to increase their emissions as they strive for economic growth and a better quality of life,” says Eileen Claussen, President of Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
“But their steadfast resistance to the idea of limiting their emissions has led to claims in some quarters that developing countries are not doing their fair share,” she adds.
As the world’s consciousness awakens to the terrible things that human beings have done to the environment, it is clear that underdeveloped countries will be only committing suicide by following development models that jeopardize the environment.
It is a well known fact that success ceases to have meaning, particularly if the quest to find it is self-destructive. Under-developed countries need to step out the bubble of seeking a development agenda that is predicated by the standards of advanced industrial countries.
The development model of highly industrialized countries is indeed the source of most past and current emissions of greenhouse gases, and it will be foolhardy to follow that model. Developing countries have a moral responsibility to ensure that they do not behave like blindfolded sheep.
In that vein, if the map of success developing countries are looking for is characterized by practices that are destructive to the environment, it becomes meaningless, and endangers humanity globally.
In effect, developing countries will be left with greater problems that many of the advanced industrial countries face today if they do not take proactive action against practices that damage the environment.
Simply put, the scope of human suffering that will be caused by harmful environmental practices will rip communities and nations apart.
In many developing countries, the phenomenon of climate change is already unraveling so-called development gains through erratic rainfall patterns that negatively affect agriculture, which is the economic mainstay of many of the countries.
Going green is therefore a better long term strategy to achieving success in underdeveloped countries compared to pursuing destructive environmental practices.
“Going green is therefore a better long term strategy to achieving success”
I have seen this argument bandied around by environmentalists so often - yet none actually engage in development theory…
How, exactly, can LDCs develop by “going green”? What do you mean by develop? What international agendas and agreements will deny them this option?
“Simply put, the scope of human suffering that will be caused by harmful environmental practices will rip communities and nations apart.”
Where is your proof? Religion has historically been the cause of far more ripping apart than the environment. The next World War will do far more damage than any country developing along Western lines [watch what happens if Gazprom buys too many European energy companies via liberalisation].
Anyone reading this article should also note that in the past, Western policies have ensured LDCs cannot develop by denying indigenous peoples the ability to use their own resources - like stopping them cutting down rainforests… Sound familiar?
Well-meaning people giving money to conservation charities perhaps don’t realise that those monies are often spent on guns and warships to kill indigenous peoples.
Some good reading to this end in Wolfgang Sachs “The Development Dictionary” or Jonathan Crush’s “The Power of Development”. If you buy one book on development, get “Development as Freedom” by Amartya Sen.
Great article, Masimba. There are definitely a lot of challenging issues when it comes to going green in developing countries.
Unfortunately, there just aren’t too many examples I know of where countries (developed or developing) have set forth good examples on a major scale (Costa Rica and Iceland perhaps?) We will see what happens in the next few years, as now alternative energies are becoming more available and people are also becoming more aware of them. The old traditional approaches toward conservation are also giving way to more innovative, collaborative approaches that seek middle ground.
Matt, in regard to one of your comments, I think it is a sensationalist stretch to say that “Well-meaning people giving money to conservation charities perhaps don’t realise that those monies are often spent on guns and warships to kill indigenous peoples.” I think what you are trying to say is that many conservation organizations cause some harm, ironically by trying to do good by being strict preservationists, and are at odds with indigenous groups in developing countries who use natural resources for their own subsistence. Is that right?
If you have proof that conservation organizations have used donations to buy guns and warships, then I would be very interested to see the proof.
Hi Levi, pretty much there, but also what I am getting at is that commonly accepted “facts” are rarely the entire truth. Empires have hundreds of years experience in propaganda, e.g. Shakespeare! Sadly, the average person is not as well versed in history or geo-politics as he was.
The conservation charities themselves don’t necessarily know or understand the damage they are doing, that is part of the problem. I’m rambling… I’ll dig out my old papers and get the references for you.
One thing I must say [I am pleased you've shown an interest and I like to provoke] is that this re-hash of old colonial tricks that is the CO2 scare is the perfect way to prevent countries developing, and to keep plundering their resources for own use.
We have the means, the motive and the opportunity. We have 500 years experience pulling the wool over the eyes of the public and using their indignation for our own ends. That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s all a complete lie, but I for one don’t believe in smoke without fire! to be continued…
Found one good article on my hard drive. It’s called “Coercing Conservation: The Politics of State Resource Control” by Nancy Lee Peluso, http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/ripm/peluso/peluso.htm
A couple of quotes:
“The state’s mandate to defend threatened resources and its monopolization of legitimate violence combine to facilitate state apparatus-building and social control. ‘Legitimate’ violence in the name of resource control also helps states control people, especially recalcitrant regional groups, marginal groups or minority groups who challenge the state’s authority”.
“The environmental community, perhaps inadvertantly, justifies coercive-protective actions on the basis of high moral grounds which are difficult to dispute” (couldn’t have put it better myself!)
“State coercion is perhaps most common for resources with high exchange value, such as some tropical hardwoods, or for resources scarce enough to render their greatest value as objects of tourism [tigers, elephants etc]”
“WWF and its partners (IUCN, TRAFFIC, and WCI) began providing ‘emergency assistance to key African wildlife departments’” … “‘L’ also asked the African Wildlife Federation for assistance … including airplanes and vehicles for anti-poaching patrols”.
I could go on but I’m verging on plagiarism and you know what academics can be like!
Change patent laws so that only the country, or the greater masses can profit, not single self-serving uber-rich shareholder groups. Ban these groups, outlaw them! Do Not follow USA’s formula - it is headed for a very sad end. U.S. has so much entrenched systems serving their Uber-rich that complete political situations have been bought and sold by lobbiests from a government ‘for the people . . .’ Bullshit. The government in the states has become a corrupt tool of the uber-rich to maintain their interests, for example, tobacco sales continue, not for the benefit of the American soul, rather for the benefit of the old money that knows how to play the American political game to maintain the status Quo. These criminals paint anything green they want to, whether it is or not! Green is simply non-wasteful engineering practice! By not wasting a pollutant, you recognize it as a resource and find a use for it! In the U.S., if a large profit is not realized by this process, the resource is discarded and becomes a problem! The resource in this case must be recycled, even at the risk of reducing the American engineering God; the over-all, shareholders’ profit.
Agree re: patent laws.
In amongst your rant, Uncle B, are some nuggets of wisdom. I disagree about shareholder profit (capitalism being one of the things that saves us from the tyranny of monarchies and governments) and also I think that it’s not just an American elite; it is a global elite formed after world war two.
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/SAP.asp
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/FreeTrade/WTO.asp#Trade-RelatedAspectsofIntellectualPropertyRightsTRIPS
GOING GREEN AND ENVIRONMENTALLY IS A MIND THING. IT MEANS VERY LITTLE, IF PEOPLE OF ALL NATIONS ARE GOING TO IGNORE TRYING TO DELETE GLOBAL WARMING. ENVIRONMENT, GREEN IS A MINDDDDD THING YOU PEOPLE INVENTED WHEN YOU THOUGHT ALL NON-SOLIDS WERE PENETRATING THE OZONE, BUT THATS ALOT OF BUNK. THE CAUSE OF GLOBAL AND UNIVERSAL WARMING WERE’NT CAUSED BY MAN. ALL NON-SOLIDS DECIPATE IN THE FRIDGID TEMPERATURES BELOW 500 FEET, THATS WHY THE E.P.A. COULD’NT PROVE IT COULD TO CONGRESS LAST YEAR AS ORDERED. http://www.socyberty.com/Activism/First-Step-for-the-Solution-to-Global-Warming.103109 and that means= http://inventube.com/ooojay/view_blog/113/ IF YOUR INTERESTED IN SAVING OUR SPECIES. THIS WILL HELP US FIND THE LOCATIONS BELOW THE OCEANS, WHILE HIGH ABOVE WE’RE HUNTING THE LOCATIONS BELOW. HAVE A NICE DAY. MIKE
WE’RE HUNTING THE LOCATIONS FROM ABOVE TO FIND THE OPENING IN THE EARTH’S SURFACES TO TRY AND LOCATE THEIR BEAMS WITH UNMANNED DRONES AROUND THE WORLD AND BY GOING BY MY LINK IT TELLS YOU TO CLEAR OUT CLEAR AREAS BELOW AND AT THE SAME TIME REPLENISHES ALL THE BEACHES AND EXPANDS THE BEACH AND ALLOWS US TO PLACE CERTAIN EQUIPTMENT IN THE CLEAR AREAS TO WATCH FOR ACTIVITY. IF THEIR’S ACTIVITY, ITS ONE LOCATION, OTHERWISE WE’RE ALSO LOWERING OUR OCEANS AND WHAT TREASURES YOU FIND ARE YOURS FROM THE SANDS OF TIME THAT HAS NEVER BEEN OVERTURNED BY MAN. HAVE A NICE DAY. MIKE