|
Developing countries have enough to worry about, from wide scale corruption(Seirra Leone) and
diseases like HIV and malaria(Ethiopia) and so many other countries. They have the right to develop
their countries just as we did in the industrial revolution. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
You're right. The economies of third world countries are as bad as it is. Why should we be making
them any worse? |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I follow Bjorn Lomorg's believe that environmental protection follows increased wealth, there is
therefore no need to artificially speed up the process which will naturally occur given time anyway. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
I think developing countries should probably try there very best to 'develop' using renewable
resources, even if it checks their growth now. It's not going to be long before traditional energy
sources run out and they may be better off in the long term if they do try to develop renewable
energy sources as much as possible rather than carry on relying mainly on fossil fuels.
Obviously I'm no economist but that's my view on things. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Developing countries already have much less restrictive or even nonexistent environmental laws,
which is part of the problem. On the plus side there are several drivers that are causing a lot of
industrial facilities in developing countries to do better environmentally.
1) Companies that want to sell in western nations risk losing that market if they are responsible
for major environmental or worker rights abuses.
2) Many developing nations get a lot of outside revenue from tourism. Tourists are becoming more and
knowledgeable about the practices of the countries they go to and are less likely to spend there
foreign dollars in places that have bad ecological records.
3) In some places like China environmental improvements are actually coming through worker demands
towards industrial hygiene. As qualified workers are in more and more demand, corporations have to
make more and concessions to worker demands. And workers are demanding a cleaner place to work. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
If the Earth had infinite natural resources and both pollution and global warming were not an issue,
then you might have an argument.
Reality check: The Earth is finite, peak oil has already been reached, and we are less than thirty
years from the complete melt of the Arctic and Greenland ice caps.
The "developing world" doesn't need more "development", rich nations need to cut back.
Edit:
The standard of living western countries have is not a right, it's an ability.
The Earth is like a bank account - how you spend it is important. If you spend only interest, it
will last forever (or in standard of living, we live as an agrarian society). If you spend
principal, it will run out, and bringing the third world up to first world lifestyles only increases
the rate we're spending principal.
You're deluding yourself if you think "onward and upward forever" is possible. It's a pipe
dream.
|
| |
 K9  14 Jun 2008 06:41
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
