Environmental issues and the field of international relations

Introduction

The change in the global climate will bring unprecedented consequences to the sensitive balances that sustain life of all forms and human life, in particular. Since the environment is an interconnected global ecosystem, protection of the global commons require international cooperation, as these problems do not stop at national borders.

The purpose of this essay is providing an evolution of “green colonialism”, in order to addresses a discussion on whether developed countries’ environmental concern will harm and affect economic development in developing countries. The discussion addressed in this paper is firmly focused on economic considerations and their significance for international relation.

The paper contains three parts. First, the essay provides an overview of the progress that developed countries have adapted in pursuit environmental economy. Subsequently, developing countries’ perspectives are outlined in order to gain better understanding on why developing countries tread developed countries’ environmental concern as Green colonialism. Lastly, some suggestions are made in order to help developing countries to achieve environmental management in favor of economic development.

After Stockholm met in 1972, states have recognized that severely worsening environmental conditions are impeding economic development and creating significant health problems (OECD 2001). Since 1992, states have recognized that sustainable economic development was most important. In the past few years, there seems to be huge change in the attitude of governments toward environmental protection over time (OECD 2001). World’s industrialized nations committed themselves to “binding limits on greenhouse gases that threaten to bring about catastrophic changes in the global climate” (Babiker et al. 2000:525). Therefore they paid unprecedented attention to the environmental protection and control industry. Meanwhile, they have recognized that it is important to “develop a new, more sustainable model of development” (Babiker et al. 2000:525). Some progress has been made in that direction, such as Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol is a legally binding international agreement to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions causing climate change, which was initially negotiated during the meeting held in Kyoto, Japan in 1997 (Boyd and Maria 2002; Larkin 2004).

They also called developing countries to participate as well. As they think that so far industrialized countries have caused a “lion’s share of global warming with their exorbitant emissions”, but this is going to change soon (Babiker et al. 2000:527). But, emissions from developing countries are growing by 5 per cent annually (OECD 2001). Developing countries will take the lead in producing emissions in the coming decades as “their economies and populations grow and the societies jump on the industrial bandwagon” (Jaura 2000:44). Ron (2004:218) suggests, “if developing countries achieve western standards of living by repeating the history which brought the west to these standards”, such as burning vast quantities of coal and cutting down most of the forests, “the resultant damage to the global environment will be a disaster for all”. Moreover, it is also generally understood the developing countries are most “at risk for environmental degradation and less well placed than the rich to cope with its consequence” (Ron 2001:218). Therefore, if developing countries do not have binding targets, climate change and global emissions will continue to rise despite the Kyoto Protocol. Thus developing countries’ participations are essentially needed to stop climate change.

This is a preview of the whole essay

It is no doubt to say that many developing countries are still “sacrificing its environment to develop its economy” (Adgey 2000:37). It has long been understood that welfare in many of the world's poorer countries is “linked inexorably with their stores of natural resources” such as soil and soil cover, water, forests, animals, fisheries, oil and so on (Mohamed 1999:8). This point notwithstanding, practitioners of development economics, particularly those located in these countries, have largely “ignored their environmental resource-base” (Mohamed 1999:8). For example, Malaysia still cut down many tropical forests to get money from the sale of timber. Millions of poor people in India still rely on low-intensity traditional fuels, such as wood, which cause air pollution. Also, Jaura (2000) use Mexico as example to illustrate this point. Jaura states, oil is very important to the Mexican economy. Indeed, throughout this past century the petroleum sector has played a central role in both the economic and political development of the country. Mexican Government nationalized all oil production in 1939, and this was particularly true during the years of high world oil prices, revenue from oil exports was high. Since that time, the government has depended on oil revenue for much of its operating budget. But, at the same time, energy use is the main source of air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. As Adgey (2000) argues, most of less developing countries need to consume more nature resource and energy to improve their lifestyle and health, to add value to their economic activities and to eliminate poverty. “They have worked with misleading and misrepresentative portraits of the production and consumption potential over the long term” (Adgey 2000:29). Although developing countries are trying to cope with the environmental protection standard, certain barriers are existed cause by its low technology, industrialization level and shortage of capital.

However, some governments of industrialized countries show a remarkable lack of understanding. They pointed that “developing countries must share the blame for heating up the earth and destabilizing its climate” (Lutter 2002). They have called for developing countries to “participate meaningfully” (Lutter 2002). That is to limit their emissions in very plain language.

Varma (2004:185) argues “The idea that ‘developing countries must share the blame for heating up the earth and destabilizing its climate’ is an excellent example of environmental colonialism”. First, passing the blame to the developing countries is unfair by definition. Industrialized countries produce still over 60 per cent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions (OECD 2001) even though they are home to only one-quarter of the world’s population. Varma (2004) also argues, an average African produces less than one-tenth of the emissions of a citizen of the industrialized countries. A person in the United States produces 22 times the emissions of an inhabitant of India. The US uses 12 times the sustainable amount of carbon, the UK 6 times and Tanzania can increase its use by 22 times (Varma 2004). Of the global warming that has already taken place, industrialized countries are responsible for more than three fourths.

Also, developed countries still fail to fully accept and work towards undoing the White R. (2002), harm they have done to the environment in developing countries (Larkin 2004; White 2002). US particularly, failed to recognize that they are instrumental in causing many of the environmental problems in developing countries. They continue to treat these countries as a "supply-house" or "sinks" to boost their economy without any change in their domestic policies (Mohamed 1999:8). A large share of the emissions originating even in the developing countries is in fact caused by the industrialized countries. Boyd and Maria (2002) clarify that emissions in southern OPEC (Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries) come almost exclusively from oil production. The rich OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) consumes nearly two thirds of world’s oil. In many developing nations, the largest source of emissions is deforestation, which is partly caused by the demand for wood in the wealthy developed countries.

Esteve (2002) argues, it is also vital to recognize the fundamental difference between emissions originating from wealthy and poorer countries. Emissions from the developed countries, such as US are created by “producing consumer goods, running home appliances, heating large homes and fuelling private cars”. Emissions in the less developed countries, on the other hand, are often directly related to “meeting basic needs, such as growing rice, rearing cattle and clearing forests” (Esteve 2002:140). As mentioned before, developed countries should recognize that less developed countries need to consume more energy to improve their lifestyle and health, to add value to their economic activities and to eliminate poverty.

Boyd and Maria (2002:31) argue, the market in carbon emissions trading is colonialism with a modern face. Industrialized countries as the biggest polluters have “not only evaded responsibility for their emissions”, but have created carbon trading, which “perpetuates and deepens unequal access to and control of resources” (Babiker et al. 2000:527). Babiker (2000) mentions, a key element of carbon trading is the carbon sink, which is a “strategy” designed to “appropriate indigenous lands”. Other development projects, such as nuclear energy, large dams and other large-scale, hi-tech projects have come to be known as Joint Implementation and Clean Development Mechanisms in the Kyoto Protocol. Boyd and Maria (2002) argue, these are false solutions which are being dumped on marginalised communities, thus widening the gap between rich and poor. They create the illusion that southern countries are benefiting, while masking the fact that it is rich countries and companies which are profiting from access to emissions permits and control of new southern markets (Babiker et al. 2000; Boyd and Maria 2002). Developing countries are “being cheated in the name of sustainable development” (Boyd and Maria 2002:528).

Lastly, developed countries are now moving towards environmental imperialism by “forcing developing countries to adopt the higher western environmental standards” (Phaneuf and Requate 2002:421). Meanwhile, Kenny (cited in Kim and Lee 2002:7) argues that the global-warming debate is being used to “mislead poor countries into pursuing policies” that will “harm their development”, and thus “perpetuate poverty”. Yet, impositions of additional costs on the exports of developing countries, through environmental regulations, will likely lead to lower wages in these countries (Phaneuf and Requate 2002:423). The export of rich countries' environmental standards would thus happen at the “expense of poor countries” forcing them to “further exploit their local environment to safeguard their livelihood”, and in process “exacerbating the environmental damage” (Kim and Lee 2002:9). It is ironical that developed countries are trying to impose the same trade rules on developing countries, in the absence of which the developed countries have been able to economically prosper. This is suffocating developmental processes and is forcing developing countries to remain as subsidizers of western economies (Koedam 2001; Okonski 2003).

It is no doubt that developing countries will also have to participate if they want to stop potentially catastrophic climate change. Emissions have to be reduced globally by more than two thirds (OECD 2001). This means that sooner or later developing nations will have limited their emissions, too. The natural resources exploited by many developing economies also need to be protected if they wish to contribute to long-term economic growth (Esteve 2002; Srinivas 2002). Developing countries should recognize environmental protection will help but not harm economic activities in long term. Ron (2004:217) suggests, “there is a broad correlation between environmental responsibility and economic success”. The assumption that environmental concern will always be negative to developing countries in favor of the economic development is contradicted by many examples (Ron 2004). Koedam (2001) also states, corporation that attaches high importance to environmental factors tend to prosper more than those that do not. For example, Ron (2004) comments, as pollution is waste, cleaner production tends to be more efficient production, therefore act as positive light in economic development.

Moreover, it is important to realize that social and economic equity between and within countries lies at the heart of all solutions to climate change. As Lutter (2002) argues, to response “meaningful participation” that advocated by US, developing countries should point out that “real meaningful participation should only on equal term”. Lutter (2002) suggests, it must have an equitable way to participate. Many researches have called for distributing emission rights equally to all citizens of the Earth: an Ethiopian would get the same right to produce emissions as would an American. Eventually all countries would have to reach the same low per capita level of emissions (Larkin 2004).

Lastly, both Wildman (1999) and Jaura (2000) argue that in absence of untied funds available to developing countries to reverse the environmental damage, it may be almost impossible for them to come out of this vicious circle. The truth is that the commitment of high-income countries to global environmental conservation depends most strongly on the marginal benefits of conservation to these countries (Jaura 2000). They should capture substantial benefits of their investment in conservation, wherever that investment occurs. International organizations, such as UN and developed countries should actively and expressly create funds and transfer of necessary technology in any form to help developing countries fight the externally induced environmental problems.

Conclusion

Environmental issues have spread to the field of international relations because many of the problems identified cannot be solved by actions on the national scale. They are planetary problems which require a cooperative effort from all governments. This paper has addressed a discussion regarding to Green Colonialism. The paper has reviewed the progress that developed countries have adapted to pursuit environmental protection, especially in the context of climate change. Also, on the other side, developing countries’ perspectives have been outlined in order to gain better understanding on why developing countries tread developed countries’ environmental concern as Green colonialism. Lastly, the paper suggested some ways that could help developing countries to better perform in environmental protection. To sum up, environmental issue should be inspired by the recognition that the environment is everyone’s business, all social actors must be involved and well cooperate in environmental management.

Word count: 2392 words (exclude reference list)

Reference

Adgey N. (2000), “Sustaining Development: Environment Resources in Developing Countries”, Environment, Vol.42 (4), Pp36-42

Babiker M., Reilly J.M., and Jacoby D. (2000), “The Kyoto Protocol and Developing Countries”, Energy Policy, Vol.28 (8), Pp525-529

Boyd R. and Maria E.I, (2002), “Cost of Compliance with the Kyoto Protocol: a Developing Country Perspective”, Energy Economics, Vol.24 (1), Pp21-39

Esteve C.E. (2002), “Climate Change and Development: Flexible Instruments and Developing Countries”, Environmental Politics, Vol.11(4), Pp140

Jaura R. (2000), “Environment: Developing Countries Urged to Fight Climate Change”, Environment Bulletin, Vol. 21(4), Pp44-49

Kim G., and Lee S.H. (2002), “Climate Change Mitigation in Developing Countries”, Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Vol.5 (1), Pp1-15

Koedam N. (2001), “A Political Economics Approach to Environment and Development”, International Journal of Sustainable Development, Vol.4 (2), Pp227-233

Larkin S.L. (2004), “Climate Change: the Challenges Ahead”, Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol.28 (1), Pp101-108

Lutter R. “Developing Countries’ Greenhouse Emissions: Uncertainty and Implications for Participation in the Kyoto Protocol”, The Energy Journal, Vol. 21(4), Pp93-105

Mohamed M. (1999), “The Green Flag of Eco-Imperialism”, New Perspectives Quarterly, Vol.16 (2), Pp8-9

OECD (2001), Environmental Performance Review, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris

Okonski K. (2003), The Science, Politics and Economic of Climate Change, Pacific Book, London

Phaneuf D.J., and Requate T. (2002), “Environmental Policy in a Green Market”, Environmental and Reource Economics, Vol.22 (3), Pp419-424

Ron Walker (2004), “Sustainability: the Environment”, in Ron Walker. and Bruce Grant (2004), The Contemporary World: Unit Book, Monash University, Australia

Srinivas K.R., (2002), “The Emergence of Ecological Modernization: Integrating the Environment and the Economy?”, International Affairs, Vol.78 (1), Pp183-187

Varma A. (2004), “Climate Change and Sustainable Development, Prospects for Developing Countries”, Journal of Development Studies, Vol.40(5), Pp184-187

White R. (2002), “Environmental Harm and the Political Economy of Consumption”, International Affairs, Vol.78(3), Pp82-104

Wildman P. (1999), Environment and Sustainable Development, 3rd ed, Prosperity Press, Nundah, Qld