Do you think that 3rd World developing countries can afford the luxury of considering environmental issues?

Answer 1

Environmental preservation is costly that third world countries usually cannot implement because of lack of funds.

Answer 2

if they manage themselves properly then yes - the technology is already out there - its more difficult for western countries to get more into eco friendly energy as it will mean big changes to what we do now creating job losses and indutries shutting down - never good for the economy.

did you know that micro-generation (a small wind turbine placed on each house) would be cheaper in the long run that inastalling the 4 new power stations needed and the cost of refurbishing and shutting down the old ones (UK). But this would lead to the loss of 420,000 jobs from the industy directly and a further estimated 100,000 from support industries.

third world countries do not have this orginal infrastructure in place and would therefore not lose anything by not opting for power stations and going striaght for wind & water energy.

a reason for them not doing so is that america (the great shithole that it is) is not doing its part in trying to get a greener world so other countries are thinking why should they. The only major country not to sign up to the Kyoto agreement is america and still the only western country that has not got a greater than 5 year plan on what to do about greenhouse gasses - coincidence that the elections are every 4 years.....perhaps.....

note for DAVE C - you obviously dont travel very much if you beleive the 'second' world is no longer in existence! Get out a bit and see something of the world - you'd change your statement if you see the conditions people have to live in in eastern russia - they are not far from being what most would consider third world - they have to live in awful conditions.

Answer 3

Greetings from the Third World (Argentina) :-)
Yes, of course we are and should be concerned about our environment. Environmental problems differ in different parts of the world, but long-term management plans are necessary everywhere. Of course, our government officers are not precisely long-time planners... all they think about is the next election!
And I don't think it's a luxury at all, for any country, population or individual.

PS: Conservation is a scientific discipline, and it does not mean "not using a resource" (in any case, that would be "preservation"). It means sustainable development, i.e. using the resources wisely to ensure they are still here after our generation is gone.

Answer 4

P.C. please... they are developing countries... there is no such thing as the third world anymore as the second world (soviet Russia) doesn't exist and it is be-littling to those developing countries to call them third world!!!

Developing countries are actually far more naturally environmental anyway as they do not destroy the world as much as the so called developed countries with pollution. These countries often have a much better grip on seeing the world as something to protect and therefore i think really a question should be asked about why countries which the West says are developing have a much better grip on humanity than us and we could maybe learn about that instead of seeing these people as those who have not caught up to our level of 'humanity' and 'lifestyle'... i think the whole thing is upside down!!!

Answer 5

No. It will only stymie their growth. The USA made the same decision during the industrial revolution. We put the contry's welfare ahead of everything else (see the hole in the ozone layer). The thing that bothers most people is that when we did it, no other country in the world knew better. When we found out, we changed our policies. These other country's have us and others to learn from yet they wish to close their eyes when it comes to their responsibility. They feel that the USA and other countries should abide by environmental laws because we have a better economy, but the world should turn a blind eye to them.

Answer 6

Well put it this way as the third world are developing the rest of the world is suing every one who is not developing, so i think the third world will have to conform as it will again miss out on the lucrative western markets

Answer 7

when the 1st world despite having knowledge and resources, in sheer arrogance is not too pushed about the green house effects, do u in all fairness think that 3rd world countries who do not even have clean water to drink, would be in the fittest of positions to secure their environments.

Answer 8

i might say no Lebanon isn't they extremely have a distinctive way of existence than us yet they are cutting-part like us that's in simple terms that the country has been ravaged with the aid of civil wars interior reach wars and different conflicts for thus long that the photos we see are 0.33 worldwide

Answer 9

it just those kind of issue's (among others) that have made them so destitute.
floods..famine, drought etc
so i would defiantly say yes, if they didn't they would die much sooner. unlike us very lucky people who get to stuff out faces sitting in a warm dry house surfing the net.
i truly feel for these people and do whatever i can, by way of donation (when afforded), recycling, not being wasteful.

Answer 10

what you talking about third world, it's the first world America is refusing to sign Kyoto Agreements. India and china must carry on with their economic progress. If Americans don't give a crap then why should they.