Developing countries should not be able to venture down the same path as industrialized nations for economic success by using fossil fuels and pillaging their own environments. However, they will and have the right to make the case behind attempting to take up the same economic tactics as the United States and Europe did. However, the ramifications from our actions and those that these countries are/or will be up taking has caused substantiated damage to our environmental quality. Not only will harm be delivered upon the rest of the globe, but these poorer developing nations as well in the long term, for a mere small-term economic gain. However, I believe that there are solutions to this quandary that involve all parties. To not take stake in this idea lays claim to immunity of a generation’s profit, for another generation’s poverty.
Western nations, led by the United States, can accomplish a comprehensive solution by aiding these countries in financial assistance, along with equitably choosing to trade more with these nations, as opposed to the usual suspects of China and India. These countries quite possibly could profit more and have some of the wealth spread onto them, providing more monetary support to invest in cleaner technologies to produce goods. Also, these western nations could set up an incentive program geared to help these countries climb out of economic stagnancy without sacrificing our environment. We are just as responsible to help provide assistance to these countries in order to compensate for their competitive advantage. Otherwise, we have no basis or contention against allowing developing countries to use dirty fuels to help increase economic viability.
The discussion of climate change should involve all related parties, which includes those developing nations which are vital to the solution. Industrialized nations may have started the problem, and help maintain a certain level of it to climate change, however developing nations will only expedite problems associated with it. China and India two of the larger developing nations are contributing to severe damage to their local environments, which in effect harm the globe as well. The use of renewable energy among western nations will not help offset the problems related to climate change if China continues to build more coal-fired plants, while having more of its citizens owning vehicles each year.
There needs to be a solution that seeks to benefit everyone in some way, while seeing a sacrifice placed on those nations more well off. This does not mean a transfer or redistribution of wealth, but merely assistance for these developing nations across the board to compete, without destroying their own land. Possibly offering financial assistance, and energy efficient incentives to those American and European companies operating within developing nation’s borders might help the overall problem. The world’s developing nations need to be shown their connection to economic success and the environment. For example, someone would use asbestos in their home because it is cheap because it is a hazard to one’s health and threatens livelihood. Lastly, these developing nations need to be in the discussion, be given options viable and equitable to them, allowed to partner with leaders of the industrialized world to solve this extremely large problem. Also, I would expect them to look to western nations to provide reasonable financial support in order to aide them while taking on these solutions.
As discussed above, China is an important part in the discussion of dealing with developing nation's and their success. Below is an interesting link to a podcast, NPRs Planet Money, which discusses China's currency situation and its relation not only to its economic success, but competitive advantage over other developing nations in trading with the US. They also talk about implications regarding China and how it handles its currency. I thought this might be relevant to this discussion.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/03/podcast_why_chinas_central_ban.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"In the end, just what constitutes "currency manipulation" depends on intent. One man's manipulation is another man's stimulus. The U.S. Fed has also been cranking out currency over the past year, but has not been widely accused of being a currency manipulator."
ReplyDeleteThat quote is from the NPR podcast you cited above. It would seem a bit disingenuious for the U.S. to call "manipulation" when that appears to be exactly what our Fed is doing to save our hides from the crooks on Wall Street and the sub-prime debacle. Guess this is interesting to me in the environmental context because it makes me think that appearances are not always what we think they are. In other words, industrialized nations can say they are cleaning the air and water and even intend to and "appear" to be doing so. We won't know if it is all a smoke-screen and smoke and mirrors until it is too late. My Mom always told me that the "road to hell is paved with good intentions."
I'm glad to see you listened to the podcast. NPR's Planet Money is a very interesting program that puts economics and pretty much everything economics affects into a simplistic perspective.
ReplyDeleteI think with regard to the "currency manipulation" and intentions, the United States has purely done this to prevent a complete meltdown of our economy. Which in result could have drastic effects on the global economy. I see China in the same light, since it is such a huge entity. It's economic success through possibly valuing its yuan lower than actual value makes it more attractive for trade and businesses investing into its country, as well as setting up shop their.
This is where the environmental aspect comes into play. Due to this attractively "economic advantage" it witnesses many firms, which might be polluters and engage in unscrupulous environmental behavior, to setup shop. This attributes to the overall carbon output China emits daily. China is one of the few, if not solely, purely profit driven communists nations that has little regard for its environment.
Now, I'm not saying that the United States hasn't participated in similar activity, we are almost accomplices to the problem because of our trade-relationship with China. Also, we are placed in a very difficult position because of our reliance on China, including the amount of U.S. debt they hold, leaving us biting our tongues on issues that would otherwise not be endorsed by the U.S.
I agree with your analysis (and from reading my other classmates Blogs, I think they did as well). It appears that everyone agrees developing nations do not have the right to pollute the environment as did the industrialized nations, but the policy issues can get complictated when industrialized nations are describing the parameters in which developing countries can operate. The objections from the developing nations probably have a huge impact on the development of these policies. It seems to be one of those policy issues that can be solved in a manner that is easier said than done!
ReplyDelete