Monday, August 20, 2012

Enviroborders

The debate over environmental protection and whether degradation is taking place in developed nations or developing ones is a finger pointing game over who is being "green" or not. However energetic consumptive choices, the economic engines of national economies almost never fit into the more or less green spectrum. Environmental decisions made by countries are governed by the need to maintain economic growth and affect the environment negatively no matter what choice is made. How do we as Americans weigh China's decision to build massive hydro-electric projects instead of more coal burning or nuclear power plants? Is hydro-electric power "Green"? What is the cost/benefit of Brazil cutting down rainforest to grow more sugar cane in an effort to move away from a petroleum based economy? Each country has answers to these questions that first rely on meeting the needs within their borders. Although a bevy of International Environmental laws are in place they are practically unenforceable. In rare cases when the crisis is critical to our survival, global cooperation has played a role in solving environmental problems. Think CFC's and ozone hole. Borders however make the cumulative global impacts of less severe environmental degradation invisible to individual nations.These cumulative impacts are reaching scales which are or soon will become critical. Is it necessary to eliminate borders and have a unified globe one United Country to solve the big environmental problems of the future?

No comments:

Post a Comment