As we approach Earth Day, I’m reminded of a provocative article with a disturbing headline that appeared a year ago in the NY Times - Poorest Nations Will Bear Brunt as World Warms. I won’t attempt to capture the full analysis - it’s rich and merits a separate read - but the article makes it painfully clear that our actions (or inactions) here in our own backyards have profound consequences for distant communities already teetering on the edge of survival.
While developed countries account for the lion’s share of emissions contributing to global warming, a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change shows that poor nations in Africa and elsewhere are on the front lines of global warming’s environmental and social impacts. Those nations close to the equator are more vulnerable to the drought, depleted water supplies, flooding, and intensified weather events that most scientists connect directly to rising air and water temperatures. As the Times article points out, those nations also don’t have the resources to build wind farms, desalination plants, and flood barriers to guard against an uncertain future. Some analyses have gone further, tracing the violence in Darfur, for example, back to drought and from there back to climate change.
Here in the US, the environmental justice movement is well-established and has been successful in countering trends and policies that have long tended to locate coal-fired plants, landfills, nuclear waste and other health hazards disproportionately in the backyards of the nation’s poor. In the age of global warming, our very notion of “backyard” has changed as we see the connection between choices we make in Chicago and the consequences they have in Chad. We need to shift our units of analysis and action from the watershed and neighborhood to the planet.
The questions that emerge from this new awareness are not easy to answer, nor are the solutions easy to nail down. Should developed countries (carbon culprits) invest more in helping developing countries prepare for the consequences of global warming? Or should we focus 100% on changing our ways and decreasing our own footprint in what’s clearly a race against the clock? Can we afford to do it all? Can we afford not to?
Tags: global warming, worldlearning
April 10, 2008 at 3:40 pm
These problems could be solved by development and mitigation with increased wealth. If they had enough fuel, for instance, they could desalinize the ocean water like Israel does. All this is impossible, however, if the third world is kneecapped by emissions reductions and prevented from making the industrial leap.
April 15, 2008 at 9:41 am
Wealth, however, leads to lifestyle changes that have a heavier ecological footprint on the planet. I think we need to turn the situation on its head and rather than investing in high-tech industries to de-salinate water (as mentioned above), focus on changing the mindset of industrialized nations- namely U.S. industries. Al Gore’s recently launched campaign is a step in this direction. Yes, we are also morally obligated to support less-developed nations in confronting the consequences of global warming but we best change our own practices that have led to this situation in the first place.
April 17, 2008 at 10:40 am
There is a great deal of debate among scientists about whether or not global warming exists, despite what Al Gore and others say. Even among scientists who agree that the evidence shows warming, admittedly the majority of scientists, most think it will be relatively gradual and mild. See, for example, Patrick Michaels. Scientific reports, such as the one by the UNIPCC, are distorted by politicians into alarming interpretations because politicians want us to believe we need them.
I’m not an economist but every economic paper I’ve read suggests we are far better off adjusting to global warming than trying to stop it. Many suggestions for adjusting to global warming are good ideas apart from climate concerns because they would terminate special interest group spending and have other benefits. Such as ending farm subsidies and subsidies in the form of flood insurance for homes built on the seashore.
I’ve been around long enough to remember the predictions of imminent doom caused by global cooling. A little skepticism is in order about disaster predictions.
April 17, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Unfortunately, I remain very skeptical that most individual citizens of wealthier countries have the power to create any real change let alone the motivation to do so. I am happy to see an eco-consciousness entering more and more into the mainstream but I also see a great opportunity for the “haves” to slap a green label on business as usual practices and profit greatly at the expense of “have nots” and “have not so muches.” We must all make the effort to educate ourselves as to the real and far-reaching effects of our consumerism. However, the reality is that daily life gets in the way - after working too many hours, struggling to make ends meet and to find time to spend with family and deal with our own personal crisises, we often don’t have energy left over to take into account how our actions affect others, especially those on the other side of the world. I fear that we will just keep going, using and abusing our resources until there is a true crisis that will force a permanent change of lifestyle. In the mean time, every individual must make their own decision to do as much as they possibly can to reduce their carbon footprint. Take the added step of teaching your children (and other family members and friends and co-workers) to become good global citizens - lead by example.
April 17, 2008 at 5:50 pm
John, just curious since you did write about the environment and how important it is, especially for us living and thriving in wealthy countries, to counter our ecological footprint. Did you get a chance to tally up your carbon footprint from your trip to Ecuador? And, does WL contribute to any carbon-offset programs to make up for the carbon footprint implications of study abroad programs and staff going out into the field? Thanks!
April 17, 2008 at 10:15 pm
At the end of the day for humanity to have any chance of surviving Global Climate Change, the debate needs to focus on equity and Climate Justice. Given that most ecological problem has come from the last 2 centuries of mass extraction and exploitation of resources for the development of Developed (G
nations on the backs of the 3rd world and underdeveloped nations of the world. Hence the bulk of the responsibility (ecological debt )lies in countries like the US and Europe. I’m quite disturbed that Rick is talking about skepticism around disasters and our responsibility to deal with it when already nations like Tuvalu, Bangladesh, and Guatemala have been swept by rising waters and intense storms-of course their entire culture and land is being wiped out while priviledged people in the US weigh their skepticism on this issue. If we’re to really start resolving this crisis seriously, super emitting countries in the G8 must drastically reduce its emissions, respect the sovereignty of nations like Iraq–or indigenous people in Ecuador to control their own resources instead of invading them for their oil, cancelling all 3rd world debt, investing most of the trillions being spent on fossil fuel interests into building a carbon free infrastructure inside their borders and providing technology transfer and funds to build carbon free infrastructure in the 3rd world. Of course that requires re-organizng the entire global system away from profit driven markets that brought this problem in the first place. I take the science and our often error ridden predictions seriously–because the IPCC’s prediction has always been an underestimate, they have misreported climate change effects sometimes by 30 years too late. The arrogance of western society to think that they understand completely how the earth and its complex system works is problematic–furthermore thinking they can control it is even more problematic. One of the priniciples argued in environmental justice is the “precautionary principle.” We don’t quite understand how uncontrolled emissions from today will impact us in 20 years although we have an idea that it’s not good just from seeing the consequences already manifesting today. Our failure to act will only bring grave consequences for the next generation.
April 19, 2008 at 10:06 pm
One of the contributors wrote that he/she is disturbed by my skepticism. I’ve been around for longer than I thought I would be (it’s better than the alternative) and all of my adult life there have been predictions of climate disaster that will end human existence within as short a time as ten years. Except it was global cooling that people feared during the first half of my adult life. That fear was expressed with the same certainty we hear today about warming. That’s one reason I’m skeptical.
Another is that no responsible scientist states that we can attribute specific climate disasters to global warming; we simply don’t know enough because our knowledge is in its infancy. For example, scientists wince at the talk of Hurricane Katrina having been caused by global warming.
Scientists also say you are guaranteed to be right if you postulate global climate change because it is always changing. Change in solar activity is a major reason. There are many scientists who think solar activity is responsible for the period of warming we are experiencing and that it will be followed by a return to cooling in about a decade. There’s nothing we can do about it.
I note the anti profit stance of some contributors. For most of history the human condition improved not at all; a subsistence standard of living for almost everyone. During the last two hundred years there has been a huge increase in living standards among an ever larger share of the world’s population and it results from competitive, profit-oriented societies. There is evidence of that all over the world and it is one of the most inspiring human achievements of all time. I want to spread it.
The improvement in living standards leads to an improved environment. By most measures the prosperous nations of the world have made massive improvements in air, water and land quality. I’ve lived in Chicago and New York, for example, and have seen dramatic improvements. Even the rate of increase of carbon dioxide emissions has slowed, and, if it follows the pattern of so many other pollutants, will begin to decline in relatively short order.
Economists have found something really interesting (at least to me) about development and the environment. When nations start to grow rapidly, they make the environment worse for a time; witness China and India. Once they get richer, that is, past a per capita annual income of a little more than $5,000, they start to clean up the environment. It is a luxury good that becomes affordable with wealth. May China, India and the rest of the world continue to grow and prosper into a healthier environment.
The prosperous nations of the world have helped the poorer nations and those nations have helped us too. The secret is trade. Increased trade is the major method by which humans have enriched each other. I don’t deny we have hurt poor nations as well; foreign aid is one of the most destructive things we do because we simply entrench tyrants with it. It is terribly sad that it doesn’t reach people who need it. I’m sure everyone writing here agrees that colonialism did major damage, so I won’t belabor that.
The precautinary principle was mentioned by one person. It seems like a recipe for paralysis to me. In a way, it folds back in upon itself because the principle would say you can’t enact the precautionary principle until you are certain it is safe to do so.
April 24, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Sorry for the delay responding. I left on vacation soon after posting this story and returned to this lively discussion! I briefly wanted to respond to Steve Rozmus’s direct and relevant question. No, I didn’t tally up the carbon footprint of my Ecuador trip but I imagine it was substantial. You hit on a big discussion in the world of study abroad right now around the need to balance the positive impact of experiencing with and connecting across cultures with the negative impact of all the carbon emissions associated with international travel in general and study abroad in particular. At SIT, we have recently established an Environmental Working Group that is looking at our overall environmental impact as an organization and how we can lessen that impact across the board. I would point you for good summaries of efforts underway to a couple of places: one is to a post on the SIT Grad Institute blog by Stevie Freeman, an SIT grad student working with the administration on environmental efforts (http://pimadmissions.wordpress.com/2008/04/22/stevie-freeman/#more-317).
This piece has a nice summary of many of the efforts underway here at World Learning.
Second is to point to the work of our SIT Study Abroad academic director in Australia, Peter Brennan, who is on NAFSA’s Task Force on Sustainability in Education Abroad. They just issued a report that makes detailed recommendations for environmentally responsible study abroad. Peter has implemented many of these recommendations in his field program and SIT Study Abroad is learning from his efforts.
April 28, 2008 at 10:58 am
Hi everyone - I thought you also might be interested in this article from the Yale Daily News about study abroad programs going “green”. Our own Akilah Clarke was quoted on the topic of maintaining good quality programs while encouraging responsible tourism and international learning:
“Before setting out to increase the quantity of study-abroad participants, programs should take a careful look at the ‘quality’ of programming, said Akilah Clarke, university-relations manager at the study abroad provider SIT Study Abroad. They should examine, among other things, the potential impact on the affected communities, how long the students will be abroad and what they plan to do with their experiences when they return to the United States, Clarke said.”