The Global North often views the South as flagrant
polluters who are depleting their natural resources faster than they can be
replenished. Often the example used is Haiti, which shares an island with the
Dominican Republic, when looking at satellite images of the island it appears
that there is a line drawn down the center of the island at the border of the
two countries. The reason for this is the prevalence of logging that exists in
Haiti and the more conservationist mindset that exists in the Dominican
Republic. Environmentalist view this as a success of their campaigning in the
Dominican Republic, and as a victory for the global North over the polluting
states of the global South. The fact of the matter is that the economy of the
Dominican republic is more based on trade and tourism industries, so they do
not need to consume their natural resources as fast as their neighbors. This thought
process that most countries in the Global North have can be incredibly
insulting to much of the people in the Global South. This has been expressed by
former Malaysian Prime Minister Mohamad Mahathir who said “When the rich chopped
down their own forests, built their poison-belching factories and scoured the
world for cheap resources, the poor said nothing. Indeed they paid for the
development of the rich. Now the rich claim a right to regulate the development
of the poor countries…As colonies we were exploited. Now as independent nations
we are to be equally exploited”. He brings up a valid point the Global North
did more than their fair share of polluting and ruthlessly exploited their land
and sea resources driving some species to extinction, and now they want to tell
the countries in the Global South how to run their states. Many countries have
taken this thinking to an extreme and say that they have not reached their
quota of pollution, and the Global North has far exceeded their quota and owes
the rest of the countries that have just recently been undergoing their own
industrialization some leeway. It is these countries who call for an exemption from
the mandatory limits on the emission of greenhouse gases under a new Kyoto
Protocol. The United States says it will not ratify the Kyoto Protocol because
it does not bind China and India, and the Chinese and Indian governments say
they will not tolerate limits on their greenhouse gas emissions because the US
has not ratified Kyoto, and this has led to a merry-go-round of talks that has
led to none of these countries curbing the amount of greenhouse gases they
emit. There is no doubt that the majority of the damage done to the environment
has been done by the Global North and they are now saying that they are helping
other countries avoid the same pitfalls made by the early industrialized nations.
However these same environmental pitfalls that destroyed the environment also
made it possible for these countries to leap forward and make them into the
powers that they are today, leaps forward that the arguably could not have made
in the same short time if they were forced to be environmentally conscious. So the
countries in the Global South see these intrusions into their economy as
hamstringing their ability to grow as a nation and they are rightfully upset.
I think that it is an interesting debate about the role that the global North plays in determining the future of the global South. Clearly, the North has made mistakes, abused their resources, and ruined their environments. Therefore, is it their duty to prevent the South from making the same mistakes? What about the sovereignty of those states? I think the North is so distanced from historical environmentalism that they don’t even remember what it’s like to merely harvest crops—so really, in terms of that, they have no business advising the South. However, the role of technology changes this game. The North has the technology to truly innovate the South. If the technology already exists, why make the South suffer through creating technology that already exists. One example of this (while not necessarily environmental) is the cell phone. Many under-developed African nations are covered in cell phones—what would the need for a landline be? They are out of date and requires expensive infrastructure that isn’t needed when satellites are up in the sky. I think that this is important because there is harvesting technology that can help cultivate more crops than ever imagined. However, in terms of economic stability, this can be detrimental. By handing over technology, the South does not need to innovate themselves. There is no economic development by just taking “gifts,” successful development comes from the process, which will not occur if the North just hands over technology. On this, I am not sure what the correct answer actually is. One even has to consider that the global South doesn’t all agree or have the same capabilities. Like the Haiti/Dominican example, right there are two countries that share an island that have different perspective. Now imagine when you throw 50 countries into the mix.
ReplyDeleteThis is an incredibly important division when thinking about climate change mitigation on an international level. What do you suggest we do to begin fixing this division between the North and South? My dad (who is an IPCC economist) always says "there's no silver bullet" to solving climate change, and this division between the North and the South only makes it trickier. Do we make the North start mitigating and wait to let the South develop? Do we incentivize them monetarily to adapt and grow in a more sustainable manner? How do we lead by example now when we have not in the past?
ReplyDelete