Many parts of the developing world have begun industrializing without regard to the environmental consequences. In light of growing environmental concerns, some individuals and groups have suggested tying aid to environmental goals including curbing emissions of carbon dioxide and chlorofluorocarbon. The international community would still give emergency aid in response to disasters, but it would tie development aid to environmental standards set by the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP). Countries with especially low emissions would receive extra aid.
PROS
The scientific community is almost unanimous in believ- ing that emissions are seriously damaging the world ecosystem. The most serious threat is climate change. The effects of global warming include increasing deserti- fication and rising sea levels. In addition, the El Niño phenomenon occurs more often. Air pollution has also resulted in increased acid rain and a growing hole in the ozone layer.
CONS
Environmental pressure groups seriously overstate the evidence for climate change. Even if climate change is occurring, pollution is not necessarily the cause. It may result from natural variations, which the fossil record indicates have occurred in the past.
|The Debatabase Book
The industrialization of the small number of devel- oped countries caused virtually all the problems laid out above. If developing countries, which have about five times the population of the developed world, were to industrialize unchecked, the effect could be catastrophic. For example, rising sea levels would flood millions of homes in low-lying areas such as Bangladesh. Increased crop failure would kill many more by starvation. Devel- oped countries might be able to protect themselves from these effects, but developing countries would not. The developing world has not acted to prevent environmen- tal disaster and so the developed world must act to save literally billions of lives.
The UN could design initial standards so that all devel- oping countries could meet the goals and receive aid. If they spend this development aid wisely, developing countries could industrialize in an environmentally clean way. In the long run, the combined approach of extra rewards for successful countries and serious sanctions for unsuccessful countries should ensure success.
Developed countries should be guardians of the planet expressly because they have a terrible history of pollut- ing. They must prevent unhindered industrialization elsewhere.
Even if environmentalists have exaggerated their claims, the threat from environmental pollution is still great enough to require action. The potential benefit of acting to save the planet’s ecosystem far outweighs any down- side. (We are not conceding that the claims are exagger- ated, merely that it does not matter even if they are.)
This is just a new form of imperialism. Developing countries have the right to develop economically and industrially just as developed countries have. Industri- alization will improve the living standards of billions of people throughout the globe. In addition, industrializa- tion will lead to economic stability for the world’s poor- est countries. This, in turn, will increase democratization in these nations.
Developed countries are hypocritical in trying to restrict emissions from developing countries when they do so little themselves. The United States, which is still the world’s biggest polluter, consistently refuses to ratify environmental treaties because its own economic self- interest does not appear to be served by doing so. What right does the developed world have to preach to the developing world about emissions?
Asking the UNEP to set emission standards is unfeasible because both developed and developing countries would try to influence the agency. Developed countries would lobby for very restrictive emission standards to decrease the threat from cheap imports. Developing countries would demand standards so lax that they would have no effect.
This proposal has serious consequences for world stabil- ity. First, developed countries would certainly not enforce regulations against China (an important trading partner and the linchpin of regional stability), the world’s fast- est growing polluter. Second, the developing countries, particularly those that fail to meet the standards, would resent such outside intrusion. In addition, withholding aid could cause economic collapse and the subsequent rise of dictatorships. Rogue nations might form alliances that threatened world stability. In their rush to develop, these states would increase pollution because developed countries would have no influence over them.
PROS CONS
Sample Motions:
This House would link aid to emissions reductions. This House believes that the environment must come first.
Web Links:
• World Bank Development Education Program. <http://www.worldbank.org/html/schools/depweb.htm> Information on sustain- able development for teachers and students.
• World Bank: Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development. <http://www-esd.worldbank.org/> Information on World Bank initiatives promoting sustainable development.
Further Reading:
Bossel, Hartmut. Earth at a Crossroads: Paths to a Sustainable Future. Cambridge University Press, 1998. Daly, Herman E. Beyond Growth: The Economics of Sustainable Development. Beacon, 1997.
Farley, Joshua, and Herman E. Daly. Ecological Economics: Principles and Applications. Island Press, 2003. Gupta, Avijit. Ecology and Development in the Third World. Routledge, 1998.