http://www.ifad.org/events/past/hunger/envir.html
At a IFAD conference on hunger and poverty the topic of "Combating Environmental Degradation" was presented. IFAD is one of the leading multilateral investors in the livelihoods of poor rural producers in developing countries. One of the leading points outlined in this article was that "humanity has the ability to make development sustainable and to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." This mainly means that at the rate of development we are going at now and the way we develop we are seriously endangering future generations. The Commission stated that as much as 70% of the world's consumption of fossil fuel and 85% of chemical products is attributed to 25% of the world's population. This means that though the environmental crisis affects everyone on the planet the amount that people living in different parts of the world contribute to the crisis depending on the level of their economic development and their consumption patterns. Another example that the Commission states to support this is that the per caput water consumption in the U.S. is about 2,300 m cubed per annum, in Canada it's 1,500 m cubed and in the UK it is 225 m cubed.
This related not only to the readings we did this week but also the discussion we had in class on Tuesday. Conca's problematique states that states have been a major factor leading to environmental degradation and therefore they need to be part of the solution. In this article that is what the commission is trying to prove that though it is a global problem the states that are part of the problem, the most, should be the ones responsible for spear heading the solution. As said in class it is very difficult to find where the authority lies on environmental degradation issues. For example, with dams and water pollution, though it may start in one nation it could flow and pollute the water of the other nation. Therefore, I guess a concluding question could be with globalization do we accept that the environment is suffering and its everyone's problem to solve, or should the responsibility lie in the hands of those most responsible?
Can we realistically come to a solution whereby only the biggest emitters are responsible for fixing the problem? I am not talking about the political barriers (which are huge) but is the problem so large that even the 'innocent' need to pitch in in some capacity?
ReplyDeleteI think that there is a case to be made in favor of only the "biggest emitters" attempting to fix the problem. A democratic approach to this, while noble, would likely prove to be a muddled mess of bureaucracy and political impasse, with close to nothing getting done. When only a few countries are involved in the decision making process, decisions are easier to come by. According to Wikipedia, the top 8 "biggest emitters" are: China, U.S., India, Russia, Japan, Germany, South Korea, and Canada (I chose 8 for simplicity's sake). These 8 combine for 68% of the total carbon emissions in the world. Allowing these countries to make global environmental policies is a great idea not only because they hold more responsibility than others but because this coalition will be able to come to a decision faster than a body such as the UN General Assembly.
ReplyDeleteThe main problem with having the biggest emitters be the ones to make decisions for the rest of the world is that what incentive do other countries, who are sovereign and did not agree to the decisions, have to abide to the agreements? They could easily say that since they were not a part of the decision making process and since they are not bound to the agreement their own sovereignty as a state allows them to do what they want. I think the idea of the biggest polluters coming together with an agreement for themselves is a fantastic idea that could really reduce emissions worldwide. However, in order to truly make a change everyone would need to sign on and agree to the decisions, which is hard for states to do if they were not included in the decision making process.
ReplyDelete@ Professor Shirk I definitely agree that the problem has gotten too big to fix and personally I don't believe that it is fair to put all the blame on specific nations and force them to come up with a solution because unless all nations agree to a solution it will never truly be implemented.
ReplyDeleteI think that if all the nations don't agree on a solution then its not going to happen. But it is incredibly difficult to get every state to agree on a solution. The way the environmental degradation and protection work is through collective action. Its not in anyone states interest to act alone so its unlikely that the biggest emitters would be willing to take responsibility. And if biggest emitters are deciding on the policy, the smaller states will find their sovereignty threatened.Everyone wants to have a say in international agreements. But I also find it highly unlikely for everyone to agree. Even if countries agree or our signatories on treaties/protocols/agreements there is no international law that forces them to comply. And certain countries, like the US, require congress to ratify treaties and some times this does not happen.
ReplyDeleteA trend that I have been noticing in these articles, as well as our class discussion, is that we all think a solution needs to be agreed upon by all countries for this to work, however the means of getting there are extremely difficult. We have come up with a variety of situations in which we can create a solution to benefit most, but not all. Matt brings up a good point where as if the countries who produce the most emissions make the rules, what prompts the smaller ones to think they should follow these rules? It adds to the many difficulties on the international system, with differing ideas halting progress. Based off your article, if you had to pinpoint one area where the "emissions talk" should start, what is the most important thing we need to work on combatting?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tim on this matter. Countries will take a long time to finally agree on these problems. I agree that we need a different route. Something needs to change. And to answer Tim's question on what should we start working on first/what we should start combatting.... I believe it is industries flocking to place where they can get away with little to no environmental or safety conditions. Put the pressure on those companies and that will speak volumes. If France, Germany, the United States, and other countries punished their industries committing these acts, things would change real fast.
ReplyDelete