How should you manage the potential negative environmental impact of international economic development?

Question

Both of these are current ethical campaigns, and yet there may be some conflict between them at their core. Are there any methods, tools, techniques that should be borne in mind, in order to achieve best outcomes?

Answer 1

You are correct; avoiding environmental impacts and advancing economic development usually work at odds with each other. Particularly when harvesting natural resources in under-developed countries 'economic development' is often contributing to a corrupt and complex system of graf and sanctioned environmental destruction. Foreign investment allows for a certain amount of convenient blindness (i.e. we didn't know) on the issue of environmental destruction, but even the country being exploited will often not take any action to address the down side of economic development. Its all about short-term gains versus long-term preservation.

How do you develop an economy while maintaining or, dare we hope, improving environmental conditions? After decades of working on these issues in the field, my only answer is communications. Econonic development won't stop, but increased awareness of the impacts can guide that development. People involved need to know what the impacts are and not through an academic paper, but through campaigns that use innovative media. Show them what the impacts mean, show them what the future will look like if they continue to destroy the delicate natural balance of the environment. Best of all - show them alternatives; other means of developing their economy that don't result in environmental impacts.

For factories, industries and corporations, reducing environmental impacts needs to be offset with financial gain. If reducing or avoiding impacts costs them anything, it isn't likely to be adopted as a 'best practice', (although increasingly standards are being legally enforced, i.e. ISO, etc). So who has the power in this situation? Who can force the industries to take responsibility? The answer is the consumer. Which brings us back to communications, awareness and advocacy.

Economic development doesn't have to be a dirty word - but it needs to be well analysed, accountable and accessible to the communities involved during each step of the process. If you want some 'on the ground' stories, check out CARE International, they have done some excellent work in this area. Also, DFID - the British Department for International Development is a great resource for reading more about this question.

Hope my thoughts are of some small use in your pondering of a very large question that challenges millions around the world. Cheers!

Answer 2

Great question and certainly relative to today's situation.

I believe creditability is at the core of this issue. The ability to develop/publish and promote unbiased technical data relating the impact of economic activities on the environment is key. How this is done remains the problem.

I would offer global warming as an example - the science supporting that global warming is occurring is unambiguous and reasonably unbiased. On the other hand, the causes of global warming and what, if anything can/should be done to mitigate its effects are highly politicized and influenced more by interest groups than science.

Frankly I do not envision a time when environmental issues will be allowed to significantly impact the economies of the world. For issues where there is widespread agreement on the negative environmental impact, the world will either invent a work around, if possible, or simply "kick the can down the road."

Answer 3

Neither the ecosystem nor financial develop might desire to be put in front of the different. we are no longer speaking approximately oil and water, interior the experience that they can't mixture. in fact, Sustainable develop has been utilized by ability of industry for some years. The evidence is interior the pudding, that sustainable develop works! Lumber companies now prefer to cut back sensibly, particularly of sparkling reducing an area. chosen timber are cut back, whilst others are left to strengthen, new ones are planted in decision to the felled timber. this way, the lumber companies will continuously have product to reap. This additionally minimizes, yet does not thoroughly do away with erosion of soil, or habitat loss. even nevertheless, it truly is a lot greater ideal than the alternative... sparkling reducing. as a count of fact that people might desire to share this international, we are going to bypass away a footprint no count what we do. even nevertheless, minimizing that footprint will bypass away the two us and the ecosystem in a greater ideal subject. To think of that economics might desire to be positioned on the lower back burner is purely naive. with out financial develop, how are you going to grow to be knowledgeable? shuttle? How will people study our international, and grow to be greater ideal stewards of the earth, if we are all out of a role and ravenous?? it truly is a provide and take courting that people have with the ecosystem. we'd desire to discover the wonderful stability between provide and take.

Answer 4

Unless you happen to be GOD, you stand no chance of 'managing' to 'achieve' any effect what-so-ever on the 'outcome'

Climate change is a fact of life (and death) and will continue to be so for the rest of eternity - nothing the Human Race does (or does not) do will have any measurable effect at all (it's the SUN, stupid)


So stop worrying about things you can't control (like "Global Warming") and start worrying about things you can control (like your personal level of debt, buying a house and how much you are saving (or not saving) for your pension).

Global Warming debates all look rather stupid when your future prospects consist of sleeping in a doorway and pushing your worldly goods around in a super-market trolley.

Answer 5

WHAT!! English please.