In this day and age, economic prosperity is the first and
foremost priority of every individual, family, community and nation. As time is
passing by, we are becoming more and more materialistic. Each successive
generation knows more about iPhones and iPads than it does about the air we
breathe and the sky we live under. We tend to turn a blind eye to environmental
issues because accepting that we are contributing to the destruction of the very Earth that sustains us would require us to change our ways. When we hear about
environmentalists fighting to protect the lives of, let’s suppose, fish we
think about not being able to enjoy seafood when we’re 50 but that’s about it. What
we fail to understand is that every species living on planet earth is a
(essential) part of the ecosystem and the extinction of one, e.g. fish, will
not only cut short the menus at our favorite restaurants but also, overtime,
reduce the number of all the other animal species that feed on fish and as
the chain (indirectly) leads up to human beings one can easily guess what the
outcome will be. What then should we do to stop the extinction of animals in
order to stop the extinction of our own kind since saving the lives of these ‘inferior’ species is of no importance to us otherwise?
There will come a time when people will realize that by
destroying nature, we are destroying our own chances of survival. Environmentalists
are way ahead of time in this regard. However, saving the environment does not
mean you have to give up on material goods and the 5 cars in your driveway,
rather its about finding a balance between economic prosperity and
environmental sustainability, and keeping one rather than all 5 cars.
Tying this to the topic, the growing need for the protection
of nature and its resources requires us to adopt a form of economic organization
that prioritizes environmental sustainability, if not over then, as much as
economic progress.
15 comments:
I agree with the point of view presented - the capitalist world we live in today only revolves around materialism and profit. The Chinese economy, for instance, has seen a great rise in GDP but at the expense of pollution. Perhaps we should weigh benefits against costs and make decisions accordingly. Realistically, however, we cannot 'go green' but we should definitely take the environment and other such factors into consideration.
While i agree with your point. I would just like to add that yes, the capitalist system breeds a system of factories and industries that damage the environment. But it is not like the government or pressure groups have not down something about this. There is a Corporate Social Responsibility that every business adheres to. This helps them minimize their chances of dealing with law suits.
done*
Awesome post! As was quoted in class last session, "When the Last Tree Is Cut Down, the Last Fish Eaten, and the Last Stream Poisoned, You Will Realize That You Cannot Eat Money." Globally, we're headed down the wrong path. We're making cataclysmic mistakes with the only planet we call home. Everything has a cost and mankind will be paying for its incredible shortsightedness sooner, rather than later. inna lillahi wa inallah-e-raji'oon.
Why can't we go green?
But is "Corporate Social Responsibility" enough? What happens when large swathes of the planet become uninhabitable because of climate change? Or when entire ecosystem collapse and what were thought of as renewable resources are no longer available?
Environmental sustainability is an important matter. However in a country such as Pakistan "going green" at this particular period of time could have serious consequences. We need to first have an efficient economy before we can arrive at the matter of balancing between environmental sustainability and economic sustainability. The first priority of a state is to take care of the individuals of a state by organizing a system of resource allocation that provides equal opportunities for all. With this in mind environmental sustainability is not an issue that should be given priority in third world countries. However it is of vital importance for the more developed economies of the world.
Why can't environmental responsibility be coupled with development? Why are you claiming this is a mutually exclusive issue? And why buckpass environmentalism to the "developed" world?
Pakistan has been on the brink of an economic meltdown.
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-09-05/news/41802478_1_imf-fiscal-consolidation-budget-deficit
Our economy sustains itself on loans that shape and sometimes dominate our political decisions. Environmental responsibility and development in most cases does become a mutually exclusive issue.
For instance, Our coal deposits are vast but an environmentally sustainable policy would require us to use solar panels and reduce carbon emissions. We cannot afford to go green.
We would save our forests and risk the opportunity cost of making wood based products that can be exported to help the economy. The fishing industry (As cleverly mentioned in the title of the article) is a very important source of export. Would you save nemo and let all those jobs go to be more eco-friendly.
People are dying of food shortage, unemployment and a whole range of other issues. We need to first care for our people and then for the environment.
Another important issue is the fact that the third world countries do not pollute to the extent of the developed economies. Most of the carbon emissions are a product of the more developed economies. Hence I term environmental sustainability a matter that should be viewed by the developed economies (who can afford to do something about it without the loss of life) more as compared to the developing ones.
Below you can compare how developed nations are more responsible for the environmental issues.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html
So you think its fine to take a temporary gain for long term loss?
“Even the most ardent environmentalist doesn't really want to stop pollution. If he thinks about it, and doesn't just talk about it, he wants to have the right amount of pollution. We can't really afford to eliminate it - not without abandoning all the benefits of technology that we not only enjoy but on which we depend.”
― Milton Friedman, There's No Such Thing as a Free Lunch
In a democratic country, decisions both economic and political need to be taken with the majority in mind. More than 60% of Pakistani's live below the poverty line that by international standards is set at $2.
We have a lot of industries that pollute the environment. They also do not have the funds to make it more environmentally sound. A restriction would result in them closing it down. This could have devastating effects on the families of the employees. Would environmentalist views be important in this scenario.
We have countless people living under deplorable circumstances. The majority should be kept in mind while developing economic strategies. An environmental economic strategy could result in a greater crises for the nation.
If we are truly a democracy we need to hear the voice of the family that has to beg for food. A man who would lose a job if we have a more environmental friendly economy.
Quoting Friedman - the archetypal free market capitalist - does not mean anything. You make a lot of claims, but where is the hard evidence? Where is the data that shows it costs more to be environmentally friendly? You're buying the arguments of capitalists who want to make a quick buck and cut as many corners as possible. Development and environmentalism are NOT mutually exclusive, contrary to your assertions. If you want hard data that supports my assertion, see the book: Green Development: Environment and Sustainability in the Third World.
Don't just buy the arguments put forth by the pro-business, anti-environment lobby. Read deeply and then make a more informed assessment.
I would like to point out that I was in no way trying to contradict your opinion which I know far exceeds my limited knowledge. I was merely answering the questions you posed, with the limited intellectual capacity that I possess. I however still feel that the cost of an environment friendly economy would be great. I have downloaded and will definitely read the book. The book in it's start has a quote and that is what I was merely trying to emphasize. This is all I read thusfar but will definitely read the rest of it.
"Telling me, a harried public official who must answer to 48 million restless, hungry and thirsty people, to ‘Ensure development is sustainable and humane’ is like warning me ‘Operate, but don’t inflict new wounds’. I know that. What I don’t know is how to do it."
(Kader Asmal, Chair World Commission on Dams, 2000)
I believe that we are not in a state whereby we could survive those new wounds. As for my arguments being pro-business and anti-environmentalist, I am a product of a world filled with their views. It is because of this argument that I might find a more informed analysis of the matter. Which I would not have come to had it not been for me voicing my opinion on this forum.
Kamil I apologize if I came off a tad harsh, but my main point was that when you make a claim, you should support it with evidence.
I'm not asking you to agree with 100% of what I'm saying and I am really glad that you are engaging in this discussion, but what I'm really trying to get you to do is question deep seated assumptions (e.g. environmentalism and development are mutually exclusive) and try to come to a more nuanced position. If after you've weighed the evidence and still think that the costs of being environmentally-friendly are too high, then fine, at least you have given the topic thought and consideration. Unfortunately far too many people buy the dominant narratives that exist without actually reflecting on whether they are true or not.
Debate is good and healthy and thank you for engaging in this one!
Post a Comment