Taking care of millions of people who are starving is more important than
saving natural resources, ...
Taking care of millions of people who are starving is more important than saving natural resources,
most of which are renewable anyway. We cannot expect developing nations to share the green
concerns of developed countries when they are faced with dire poverty and a constant battle for
survival.
No because...
We have already wasted and destroyed vast amounts of natural resources, and in so doing have
put earth at risk. We must preserve the earth for our children and grandchildren. In any case,
poverty and environmental damage are often linked. Destroying the rainforest gives native peoples
nowhere to go except urban slums. Polluted water can lead to crop failures. Climate change will
turn fertile fields into desert and flood coastal areas where hundreds of millions live. Developing
countries have to choose sustainable development if they want a future for their people.
No because...
No one wants to stop economic progress that could give millions better lives. But we must insist on
sustainable development that combines environmental care, social justice and economic growth.
Earth cannot support unrestricted growth. Companies in developed countries already have higher
costs of production because of rules to protect the environment. It is unfair if they then see their
prices undercut by goods produced cheaply in developing countries at the cost of great pollution.
No because...
Unchecked population growth has a negative impact on any nation, as well as on the whole
planet. Both the poverty and the environmental problems of sub-Saharan Africa are largely the
result of rapid population growth putting pressure on limited resources. At the same time China
has become wealthy while following a one-child per couple policy. Limiting population growth will
result in a higher standard of living and will preserve the environment.
No because...
Nations are losing more from pollution than they are gaining from industrialisation. China is a
perfect example. Twenty years of uncontrolled economic development have created serious,
chronic air and water pollution. This has increased health problems and resulted in annual losses
to farmers of crops worth billions of dollars. So uncontrolled growth is not only bad for the
environment, it is also makes no economic sense.
No because...
Scientific progress has made people too confident in their abilities to control their environment. In
just half a century the worlds nuclear industry has had at least three serious accidents: Windscale
(UK, 1957), Three Mile Island (USA, 1979), and Chernobyl (USSR, 1986). In addition, the nuclear
power industry still cannot store its waste safely. Hydro-power sounds great but damming rivers is
itself damaging to the environment. It also forces huge numbers of people off their land as in
Chinas 3 Gorges project.
No because...
Looking after our fragile world has to be a partnership. Climate change will affect the whole planet,
not just the developed world. In fact it is likely to have particularly terrible effects on developing
countries as sea levels rise, deserts advance, and natural disasters become more common. It is
no use Europe trying to cut its emissions into the atmosphere if unchecked growth in China and
India leads to much greater overall pollution. Instead, developed countries need to transfer
greener technologies to the developing world, paying for environmental protection and making
sustainability a condition for aid.
The Green Revolution has doubled the size of grain harvests. Thus, cutting
down more forests to p...
The Green Revolution has doubled the size of grain harvests. Thus, cutting down more forests to
provide more space for crops is no longer necessary. We now have the knowledge to feed the
worlds increasing population without harming the environment. Genetically modified crops can
also benefit the developing world by requiring much less water, fertiliser or pesticide use while
giving better yields. This is another example of economic development leading to environmental
benefits.
No because...
The Green Revolution is threatening the biodiversity of the Third World by replacing native seeds
with hybrids. We do not know what the long-term environmental or economic consequences will
be. We do know that in the short run, such hybrid crops can cause environmental problems by
crowding out native plants and the wildlife which relies on them. The farmer growing hybrid crops
must buy costly new seed every year because it cannot be saved to plant the following years
crops. Farmers using hybrid seeds in what was the richest part of India went bankrupt. As a result,
fertile lands lay idle and unploughed, resulting in droughts and desertification.
First of all, We must maintain the environmental development first because of if you planting some trees at
the traveling areas or the foreigners likes to visit, also that also makes income, and other people from
another country will come into our country more and moreSo IF you developed Environmental first, it will
also help the economic too! because you get income from foriegners and finally you can donated to poor
country and also develop our country..
Something must be done; anything must be done, whether it works or not expressed by Bob Geldof during
the Live8 concert, this feeling strongly resonates within many development and environmental circles,
particularly in relation to the broad, complex and contested structure of international development. The
challenge for advocates, policymakers and institutions is finding what works. It is often easier to formulate
short-term interventions focussed on providing immediate relief than to identify. It is easier too to construct
policies based on existing perceptions of what is needed and received wisdoms on poverty instead of ones
that reflect meaningfully the experience of living in poverty. Never has this flaw been more conspicuous than
in matters related to environment.
Under the dominant neoliberal ideology, the environment is seen as a free commodity, open to exploitation
for economic growth and prosperity. And as environment is designated as a public sphere, it becomes
incredibly difficult to pinpoint a definite authority to address the aftermath of environmental degradation. By
and large, this responsibility has been the burden of developing countries with the implicit assumption that
the third world, with its lions share of poor and uneducated population, is responsible for the thoughtless
and haphazard destruction of environment. However, beyond the buzzwords such as sustainability, are we
really on track to a healthier and greener environment? Or are we witnessing, even more vividly, the unequal
power relations of the world and the prevailing market principles of economic growth and privatisation?
The Brundtland Commission (1987) issued a definition of sustainable development as meeting the needs of
the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. This view has
been widely accepted in the field of environment sustainability, yet it is difficult to develop universal
standards of what is meant by needs. In developed countries, with flourishing service industries and
consumerism at its peak, it is questionable to suggest that only needs are being fulfilled. So, should the
worlds poor sacrifice their natural resources for a wealthier population? Or should our understanding of
sustainability be remodelled?
The turn of the century saw renewed global political commitments culminate in the creation of the
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), a blueprint for development highly focussed on global South. MDG 7
tackles environmental sustainability, primarily through the integration of principles of sustainable
development into domestic policy. However, critics say that MDG 7 fails to recognise the way in which the
global financial system operates, and thus overlooks the transnational dimension of the world economy. Little
has changed about the trading relationship between the global North and South, as they both remain
importers and exporters respectively of primary commodities. And with a large number of multinational
companies operating directly or indirectly within the developing world, should we be focussing our efforts on
governments alone? Surely companies too should adhere to eco-friendly rules and regulations.
When the consequences of the global environmental degradation manifest themselves in the form of rising
sea levels, melting glaciers, and an unbalanced ecosystem, how should we respond? This is one of the most
pressing questions of our time. In fact, many of these changes have already begun and judging by the
reaction to date, it appears that for many governments, organisations and individuals, action on these issues
is still not a priority.
Instead of debating who has contributed the most to environmental degradation, we should be planning our
collective response. Ultimately, the consequences will not be restricted to a certain region or country. So, isnt
it high time to take global responsibility?
Conservation of Resources
We live on a planet that is a treasure trove surrounded by empty cosmos. While we don't know how many
planets like Earth are out there, we do know there are none particularly close by. Even getting to the nearest star
would take hundreds or thousands of years. Our planet contains liquid water, oxygen, a moderate temperature
that doesn't vary dangerously, and a variety of environments. We have forests, swamps, deserts, mountains,
grasslands, and enormous oceans. Our planet contains abundant resources. But it doesn't contain unlimited
resources. We only have so much freshwater available to us, and only have so much coal, oil, and gas to burn.
There are only so many trees that we can cut down before we run out and only so many metals we can extract.
If we don't, we end up with problems. For example, there are many places in the world dealing with water
shortages. In California, water shortages are a yearly problem, and even despite importing huge amounts of
water from out-of-state, it always seems to be a struggle. In parts of Africa, it can be a matter of life and death.
This problem is only getting worse thanks to climate change causing dry areas of the world to get even drier.
Through climate change, the Earth is getting warmer because of the greenhouse gases that humans have
released into the atmosphere. We've cut down trees and burned them, releasing even more greenhouse gases.
This heating of the planet makes issues of water supply even worse, and the more resources we use the worse
the issue gets.
So, if the matter is this serious, how do we properly conserve resources into the future? And whose responsibility
is it?
The problem with this view, as fair as it may seem, is that climate change is irreversible and action is needed
worldwide for the process to be stopped. Putting the burden on developing countries might not be fair, but
something has to be done to conserve our resources and prevent further damage to the environment. If we don't,
droughts will get worse, whole countries will be under water, and rainforests will be lost (causing even more
climate change).
This planet belongs to all of us, and so the responsibility lies with all of us.
Taking Action
The only chance that we have for success when it comes to conserving our resources and protecting what we
have on earth is if action is taken on every level. Governments need to take action, whether they represent
developed or developing countries (though developed countries can help fund developing countries to make it
easier for them to make changes). The most likely way that this could be implemented would be through an
international agreement, ideally one that is legally binding. That way, countries that don't comply can have
consequences applied to them.
Responsibility is a hot topic in climate change debates. Who is to blame for climate change? Who has
the duty to do something about it? These questions are particularly relevant in discussions about
climate change mitigation, that is, about who should reduce their carbon emissions and by how much.
In his address to the COP 18 in Doha, in December 2012, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, stated
that the developed world should bear most of the responsibility for mitigation because the climate
change phenomenon has been caused by the industrialization of the developed world (The Guardian,
2012). In contrast, renowned climate change economist Lord Nicholas Stern argued that developing
countries are now responsible for the bulk of carbon emissions and therefore, regardless of their
historical contributions, need to adopt ambitious carbon reduction objectives (Harvey, 2012).
Because these arguments are entwined with the attribution of praise or blame for action or lack
thereof, they can be framed as a question about moral responsibility (following Eshleman, 2009).
Climate change poses a deep moral challenge because it concerns a problem caused by those who
consume most but whose consequences will be mostly felt by those who are most deprived (Jamieson,
2010). The question here is whether responsibility should be adjudicated on the merits of an action or
on its consequences. Ban Ki-moon asks developed countries to take initiative to address climate
change on the grounds of their historical responsibility, because it is the right thing to do. In contrast,
Lord Stern is urging emerging economies to take such responsibility on the grounds of the potentially
catastrophic consequences that we may expect should they decide to do otherwise.
The attribution of moral responsibility to an action has most often been discussed in relation to
individuals because it requires not only finding an agent, but also establishing the agents intention,
capacity, freedom and knowledge to do such action. Indeed, much research on climate change has
approached the problem of responsibility for emissions abatement from the point of view of individual
responsibility. This can be seen, for example, in studies that examine the basis for establishing
personal carbon budgets (e.g. Roberts and Thumim, 2006) or in those that seek to explain why
individuals do not perceive climate change as a moral imperative to change their actions (e.g.
Markowitz and Shariff, 2012). However, a strictly analytical take based upon individual responsibility
ideas may lead to the conclusion that, since climate change is a problem of many hands (many
people share in the actions leading to it), nobody is (in some sense) responsible for climate change
(van de Poel et al, 2012; p. 51). There are good reasons to reject this line of reasoning. First, stating
that nobody is responsible for climate change leads to paralysis. Second, empirical evidence of public
and private initiatives in distant corners of the world (e.g. Bulkeley and Castn Broto, 2012) suggests
that both individuals and groups are actively taking responsibility for climate change mitigation.
Climate change can also be approached as a problem of collective moral responsibility. Looking at
environmental issues as emerging within existing systems of production and social relations has led to
a critique of individual-based understandings of environmental responsibility (e.g. Castn Broto, 2012;
Agyeman and Evans, 2004). These arguments resonate with Ban Ki-moons warning to his audience at
the COP18 in Doha: we, collectively, are the problem (Ki-moon, 2012). However, the responsibility of
an agent is judged on an action and its intentions, but only individuals, not groups, can formulate
intentions. Establishing collective responsibility without invoking personal intentions requires alternative
understandings of responsibility.
The discussion on collective moral responsibility distinguishes between organized groups (e.g. a
government, a corporation, an NGO) and random collections of individuals (e.g. a group of bystanders,
a group of people playing on a beach) (see Held, 1970). In between these two extremes, there is high
diversity in the ways in which groups and individuals organize themselves. May (1992) argues that it is
possible to ascribe collective responsibility for action to a group when the result is only possible by the
combined actions of the individuals in that group. Thus, collective responsibility appears to be
appropriate in cases involving organized groups, whose organizational goals may be read as
intentions, but less so in cases involving random collections of individuals. The loose group of citizens,
consumers, business, governments and civil society organizations who may have responsibility for
climate change resembles more the latter than the former. How can we attribute collective
responsibility to such a disorganized group of institutions and individuals?
Held (1970; p.94) argued: when the action called for in a given situation is obvious to the reasonable
person and when the expected outcome of the action is clearly favorable, a random collection of
individuals may be held responsible for not taking a collective action. In other words, if a random
collection of individuals can act to prevent an incoming damage, they are responsible for it. This
argument renders all interested parties in the climate change debate morally responsible to prevent the
potentially catastrophic events that climate change could bring in the future, as long as the action
called for is obvious to the reasonable person.
Practical plausibility is a condition for collective responsibility (May, 1990). Responsibility depends on
the group knowing what they should be doing. In the case of attributing climate change responsibilities
what is to be done is also a matter for debate. Advocates of technical fixes, behavioral changes or
political and economic transitions routinely seek to define competing courses for action. When the
course for action is not clear, such as in this case, Held (1970; p. 94) argues that any random collection
of individuals could at least be held morally responsible for not forming itself into an organized group
capable of deciding which action to take.
If we, collectively, are the problem, we are also responsible for organizing ourselves into institutional
structures capable of dealing with this problem. Thus, if the annual conference of parties is an attempt
to coordinate global action for climate change, then any attempts by countries to limit or hinder the
capacity of action of the COPs could be regarded as failing to take responsibility for climate change,
whether this is from industrialized countries, emerging economies or poorer nations. Yet, the COP is
not only an instrument to develop institutions to deal with climate change; it is also a ruthless
diplomatic exercise. Different parties have different bargaining power. Not all countries enter the
negotiations on an equal footing and hence, not all parties should be blamed for their results (less so
those who are not or do not feel represented at the negotiations).
The argument of historical responsibility may help considering the differentiated responsibilities of
negotiating parties. While this may not amount to reparation, industrialized countries- their
governments and citizens- should take responsibility for climate change not only on the grounds of the
actual emissions they have physically emitted but also because the have created models of
consumerism that have led to the depletion of carbon sinks. On these grounds, responsibility also
means investing resources in finding alternative sustainable development paths, practical and
plausible. Although these actions may play a key role in understanding what is to be done they should
be understood as relating to the responsibility of developed countries and not to the overall
responsibility of all parties. They should be independent from attempts to organize collective action for
climate change globally.
Overall, we can attribute varying degrees of responsibility to different parties but the sense of collective
responsibility remains. The problem of collective responsibility for climate change is not confined to the
sphere of government, as it pertains to both the material economy and the broader society whose
values underpin existing production and consumption patterns. However, this collective responsibility
cannot simply be distributed among all individuals because there are great differences in terms of
access and use of carbon sinks and capacity to act (not only between countries, but also within
countries). The good news is that evidence suggests that multiple actors, disenchanted with the
international regime of climate change governance, are taking spontaneous initiatives for climate
change. This is evident in cities, where local governments, companies, citizen groups and NGOs are
trying out new forms of sustainable living (e.g. Bulkeley et al, 2011). Often, such initiatives are
characterized by a higher degree of technical and social experimentation, from piloting new
technologies to developing innovative partnerships (Bulkeley and Castn Broto, 2012). While they
appear within a fragmented landscape of climate change action, such experimental initiatives also
provide spaces for the intervention of multiple and competing interests.
The bad news is that these initiatives may be limited to address the problem of collective responsibility
unless they can lead to organized, collective actions capable of dealing with climate change challenges
in the short to medium term. Skeptics may rightly point at the limited impact that these experimental
initiatives have had in reducing actual emissions of greenhouse gases. Yet, spontaneous and
purposive actions to reduce carbon emissions will help in developing new values and attitudes and
thus, each of them represents an attempt to engage with our collective responsibility for climate
change.