Should poor countries sacrifice their economies to stop global warming and environmental issues?

Question

This question comes after reading an article where China says that poor countries should not sacrifice their growth to the general concern about global warming and other environment issues. They have a point by adding that most of the green house emissions comes from the richest countries and that the effect of slowing their economy is far worst than the global warming effect. I belief that if we are able to travel to the moon and orbit the earth, we can find a better way to produce our goods and energy needs in a more efficient and cleaner way than today. Because of the fundings needed for research and development it needs to be done by the governments of the wealthiest nations. We as individual also need to play a part to be more efficient in the use of energy, water and goods. And this is not only is good for the environment but also for your own family budget.

Answer 1

Don't get me wrong, I'm a total advocate for being environmentally conscious. In fact, I ride my bicycle to work to cut down on carbon emissions, dependency of foreign oil and the need for war to defend that type of energy - but I don't think that any country should sacrifice their economy for ecology and I agree whole-heartedly with your explanation.

First of all, it's not an either or issue. You do not either have an environmentally friendly country or a successful economy. You can have both. Holland has used wind energy for a long time. Recently Germany became the solar capital of the world (yes Germany, the place without a bunch of sun). I recently needed new light bulbs for my bedroom, and opted for the eco-florescent ones, because it doesn't cost a lot more, and they make a lot of sense. Walmart enclosed their refrigerators and used skylights better to reduce their energy usage by 20% or more. Shanghai is even building "green" complexes with commercial and residential together so residents use less fuel to get to the store and back.

When I look at the problem, it's not an issue of killing an economy, it's an issue of adopting best practices. Best practices include designing better buildings that are multifuncional and more energy efficient. Best practices includes placing retail and commercial space near residents who will shop and work there. Best practices include producing wind, solar, wave, and geothermal energy close to where it will be used. Best practices include not eating a 3000 mile salad.

Being environmentally concious is not something that you do by going about big projects. It's about living life a little bit smarter than we used to.

On a side note, I think that there are better ways to invest the world's money than to combat global warming. Check out this link for a nice 19 minute discussion of the topic. Very intelligent.

Answer 2

Yes, it is true that the bigger countries like the USA are more of a contributor to global warming, but China is not far behind. Global warming IS a moral issue so YES even less wealthy countries need to be responsible. Saying that economic repercussions are worse that global warming is just plain ignorant. Do the studies! We are talking about a 40 degree increase in global temperature within 20 years. With the ocean level rising as a result of this temp increase, we are going to lose 30% of our land mass to the ocean. That is OVER 2 billion people as refugees with no place to go. This is CLEARLY a moral issue for all people to embrace and SOLVE. What part of "Destruction of all Human Life on Earth" does China not understand?

As far as the economy, I just don't get the problem. Solving global warming is the most challenging thing the human population has ever faced! To fix this we will need tons of research, developement, awareness, the list goes on and on. All of these necessities to solve global warming are in fact (brace yourselves) JOBS!!!!! How can creating new jobs, global awareness of our planet's fragility, the bonding together of nations to solve the biggest threat of all proportions be a BAD thing?

Answer 3

Developing nations can help the environment by growing in a "green" way. For example, before an area gets electricity for the first time, they can decide how it will be created and learn from the mistakes of richer countries. Whereas we have built coal plants, nuclear plants, etc., a developing area may choose to build wind turbines or solar stations to get electricity. This can be done in a way that helps their economy and environment, thereby helping their country. Richer countries should help the poorer countries by providing information and assistance for them to grow in a "green" way; and a few programs already exist that do this.

Richer countries also have an obligation to change our polluting ways so that we're not harming the environment as much. A simple way to do this is by improving the "greenness" of replacement / new things we build. Another example: When we find we need more electricity, meet the demand in a "green" way rather than the same ways we did things before. We can use less electricity in homes and businesses and produce more by use of wind turbines and solar stations.

Answer 4

I don't necessarily think that poor and/or developing countries should have to sacrifice their economies to stop global warming. I do believe that the US is currently the leader in production of greenhouse gasses, although China has been increasing at a rapid pace. More developed and "richer" countries have already gone through their industrial revolutions where they have been far less "clean" than they are now. Other countries, such as China and India, that have been going through these and are moving towards these ends are going through more of these periods now. China is actually talking about taking steps to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gasses, I believe, by next year. I think we need to allow developing countries to develop such that they can get to the points where they will be able to have a stable economy and can get past the point where they are using "lesser technologies" and less clean-burning and efficient methods of power/transport and move towards becoming "greener nations". The richest nations should be taking greater steps, however, to attempt to clean up their acts and lessen the harm caused by them to the environment.

Answer 5

Sarificing all the excess children after the 5th one would have much more effect.
its what the Aztecs did .

And is a sure fire way to relieve pressures on resources and The Environment
As well as rescue an economy

Answer 6

No, I think the rich countries should sacrifice their economies.

Answer 7

Should anyone? Are we feeling guilty for our success? Has success paralyzed us? Environmentalists love to reach their grubby little hands into pockets they don't belong.

Answer 8

environmentalist think they should

personally, i feel they're as much entitled to their industrial revolution as anyone else is

Answer 9

yes... and:

"Tthey should quit using fuel... I want it for my Jet" (Al Gore)