Discussions of the future of the planet are dominated by those who believe that an expanding world economy will use up natural resources and those who see no reasons, environmental or otherwise, to limit economic growth. Neither side has it right.
Good morning to one and all present here. The motion before the house is ‘economic growth of developing countries is more important than protecting the environment’ and I would like to present my views against the topic.
The truth, of course, is that most of us care more about our standard of living than we do about the health of some species we seldom if ever see. And the truth, even harder to admit, is that most of us care more about our own welfare than we do about that of persons living three or four or five generations hence. This is the harsh reality. We have already wasted and destroyed vast amounts of natural resources, and in so doing have put earth at risk. We must preserve the earth for our children and grandchildren. As the quote goes “We have not inherited the Earth from our ancestors, we have borrowed it from our children.” Unquote.
My worthy opponents may argue that developing nations can not be expected to share the green concerns of developed countries when they are faced with dire poverty and a constant battle for survival. However, poverty and environmental damage are often linked. Destroying the rainforest gives native people nowhere to go except urban slums. Polluted water can lead to crop failures. Climate change will turn fertile fields into deserts and flood coastal areas where hundreds of millions live. Developing countries have to choose sustainable development if they want a future for their people.
Many people today still assume – mistakenly – that the Earth is so big that we human beings can not have any major impact on the way our planet’s ecological system operates. This assertion may have been true at one time but that’s not the case anymore. Our population has increased manifold and our technologies have become so powerful that we are now capable of having a significant influence on the Earth’s environment.
I would like to make it clear that no one wants to stop economic progress that could give millions better lives. But we must insist on sustainable development that combines environmental care, social justice and economic growth. Earth cannot support unrestricted growth.
Statistics have shown that unchecked population growth has a negative impact on the whole planet. Both the poverty and the environmental problems of sub-Saharan Africa are largely the result of rapid population growth putting pressure on limited resources. Statistics have also shown that the pre-industrial concentration of CO2 was 280 ppm. In 2005, that level measured 381 ppm and it is still growing.
The next point I would like to put forward is that nations are losing more from pollution than they are gaining from industrialisation. China is a perfect example. Twenty years of uncontrolled economic development have created serious, chronic air and water pollution. This has increased health problems and resulted in annual losses to farmers of crops worth billions of dollars. So uncontrolled growth is not only bad for the environment, it is also makes no economic sense. I would also like to quote an incident. In 2005, there was a flood in the Shandong province in China. At the same time, the neighbouring area of Anhui province was facing a drought.
We must not forget that looking after our fragile world has to be a partnership. Climate change will affect the whole planet, not just the developed world. In fact it is likely to have particularly terrible effects on developing countries as sea levels rise, deserts advance, and natural disasters become more common. As Margaret Mead said “We won’t have a society if we don’t have an environment.”
Perhaps my worthy opponents may put forward the immense advantages that the developing nations faced with the Green Revolution. However, the Green Revolution is threatening the biodiversity of the Third World by replacing native seeds with hybrids. Such hybrid crops can cause environmental problems by crowding out native plants and the wildlife which relies on them. The farmer growing hybrid crops must buy costly new seed every year because it cannot be saved to plant the following year’s crops. Farmers using hybrid seeds in what was the richest part of India went bankrupt. As a result, fertile lands lay idle and unploughed, resulting in droughts and desertification. Our environment in which we live and work is a mirror of our attitudes and expectations.
So the question remains, what will happen to our industrial civilization if the supply of natural resources is constantly diminished relative to demand? The answer is obvious. Our prosperity will be threatened. And the solution is obvious. We must strive to obtain more goods and services from our finite supply of non-renewable resources, and we must protect -- from both extraction and waste impacts -- the natural productivity of our forests, fisheries, agricultural and range land, and other renewable resources. I would like to end by quoting David Orr “When we heal the Earth, we heal ourselves.” Unquote
No comments:
Post a Comment