Dilemma of Global Warming
Last week on Real Time with Bill Maher, a Republican Congressman cited the oft-quoted argument for global warming opponent that it has not been proven yet and there is no discernible evidence that human intervention is a causal effect in spite of the mountain of evidence in favor of the fact. Anyway, I am sold on global warming and hence base my opinions on that fact. Recently Time Magazine featured an excellent article on the role of India and China regards future of global warming. This topic was always at the back of my mind and is often alluded to in academic discussions but is never given the attention it deserves. In brief the article says:
On a per capita basis, China and India emit far less greenhouse gas than energy-efficient Japan, environmentally scrupulous Sweden–and especially the gas-guzzling U.S. (The average American is responsible for 20 times as much CO2 emission annually as the average Indian.)
This great sustainable utopia however is threatened by the fact that the Chinese and Indian economy is growing by leaps and bounds and thanks to the spreading globalization, almost a billion Indian and Chinese aspire to live the lives that Americans have been living. It is said that, if every nation on this planet consumed as many resources (per capita) as the United States does, then we would need three Earths to survive.
But thankfully(?), the world’s resource distribution is far from fair and thus we have come so far. But we cannot afford to ignore the problem anymore. Often industrialization and environmentalism is a zero-sum game i.e. one exists at the expense of the other and although sustainable practices may not assume so, it happens thus in the real world. The Kyoto agreement however takes this relationship into consideration and developing countries are given leeway regards such polluting industrial practices under the pretext that it helps their economy grow faster. Logically, it makes sense because that is exactly how the developed nations grew and achieved their superior economic prowess.
If Britain and United States had stopped to consider the environmental impacts of their industrialization efforts, they may never have existed in the state that they exist now. The 19th century was for Britain what the 20th century was for the United States and similarly is promising to be the same for the Asian nations in the ‘flat world’ 21st century. The developed countries for e.g. the United States refuse to sign the Kyoto arguing that it would cost their economy and cause it to lose its competitive advantage. The developing countries point to the practices of the developed nations and refuse to sign because reduced emissions that Kyoto requires means less industrialization which in turn means less economic growth. The emotional argument, is why right do the developed countries have to ask us to conserve environmental resources when they did the same? Are their intentions truly in the best interests of the planet or do they simply want to maintain their economic superiority? These are real and important questions and beg to be answered. Conservatives will point to the market mechanism and liberals will ask for extreme conservation. There are downsides to both approaches.
A better approach would be to strike a balance between the two and using technological innovation, try to find alternative sustainable ways to build your economy. This is already happening as services has superseded manufacturing in many economies but still goods have to be manufactured somewhere and if such processes create pollution, then we have a hard decision to make. The impunity with which we polluted our planet (ignorance can be a valid excuse here) leaves us little choice as the planet can absorb no more carbon dioxide because the vegetation that had earlier compensated for the excess has sharply declined either due to natural causes like forest fires or due to human intervention like excessive logging.
So is there no way out? Well, the ball is metaphorically in India and China’s court. If they choose to pursue sustainable practices and find ways to prosper not at the expense of the environment, then we still have hope. Of course, this requires thinking that goes beyond rational thought. If they feel confident that the United States and other developed nations are seriously pursuing their environmental-friendly policies, they may be convinced to follow suit. It hasn’t been completely hopeless. Public transit vehicles like buses, taxis, and rickshaws in Delhi and Bombay have converted to CNG. There is a growing concern for environmental awareness in India as well but it simply hasn’t found enough impetus. Hopefully, the future generations will make a wise choice.
Pingback: Recurring Decimals….. » Blog Archive » Wasting gas in circles