This is a very difficult topic to choose a side for. On one side allowing countries to ravage their environment to survive seems to make sense. Human life above all other things. If we do not allow them to do what they need to in order to survive could we live with the idea of allowing a population to die off? On the other hand what kind of future would they have once they have destroyed their environment? Would there even be a future worth living for? Would the people of that country eventually have to leave to find another home? Or could we allow them to move forward and do what they need to do to survive and hope we can help them and hope that the environment can withstand like ours did? I firmly believe that we are not in this alone and we cannot stand by while another country exploits their environment. We also cannot stand by and let a population of people suffer. There has to be a middle ground. There has to be a way in to which we send aid and help them find a way to sustain without destroying what they have. It sounds cliche but things are different now and with the developments in science we can surley help countries conserve water, food, wood, and other essentials which was not available to us in the early stages of our country.
When everyone comes to the table in the fight against global climate change there are going to be an inequality in who can provide what. There should be equity in this debate however, it goes as far as everyone should be involved. At what level they can be involved is where the inequality will occur. Those that do not get involved should face penality no matter their development stage. In the case where a country values economic development more than environmental problems should be told of the consequences of their actions. What neglect will do to their country as well as the lack of aid that they will receive from countries that are involved with environmental progress. Prehaps a slow down in purchasing of exports from that country in order to presuade them to particpate.
Developing nations should have the understanding that everyone is doing what they can. As long as we are working toward the same goal together it will improve the environment. As long as they are showing they are committed to doing what they can, they will find support from other countries that they may not have seen previously. No one is alone.
Alicia
So this is my blog...not really sure what I am going to do with it, but I had to create it for two of my classes in my masters program at ASU. Last week I turned in my final paper and I am graduating next week. But I still have this blog. So I guess I will continue to write and see where it takes me. :)
I agree that there has to be a middle ground. There has to be a way in to which we send aid and help them find a way to sustain without destroying what they have.
ReplyDeleteBut I consider that finding this middle ground is going to take that all countries have similar, if not equal environmental values, for human life, resource use, and future generation legacy.
That may take more that a cliché but things are different now with globalization and scientific data on our day-to-day activity's consequences.
Hi Alicia,
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that we are in this together, and that industrialized countries have a responsibility for assising developing ones. However, I for one, think it's important to recognize that this is due to not only a moral obligation for our fellow global citizens, but because the industrialized world has assisted, and continues to assist, in the exploitation of the natural resources in the developing world.
Maybe I'm just overly critical of the industrialized nations, but I know a bit of the destruction of developing countries by the U.S. and other superpowers, and I don't think that our politicians (or our citizens) should be allowed to turn a blind eye. Sorry to have gotten off the topic - I'm very opinionated on this issue! Thanks - Ada