You will often here with some justification the need to develop economically outweighs the environmental risk; in the short term. You may have enough revenue to educate the population but you by then may have degraded the environment to such an extent it cannot support them. Indeed you may spark a war with your neighbor if you have diverted resources such as main rivers to suit your own purposes but have starved them of their primary food source.
Such is the case with the proposed dams of the Mekong in Laos
He felt there was no alternative. "We have done studies on micro-energy and renewables, but they are expensive. I don't think the world can subsidise that. If we do it ourselves, only cheap energy from hydropower will do."
I would argue that the world cannot afford not to help developing nations attain their goals through renewables, the only reason the cost is high is that we are not expanding their use ourselves. If we increase the production capacity the price will come down.
The International community must act in each others interests rather than the selfish notion of self contained nation. I would argue our environment is too well interconnected to regard it as a national interest only; since for every action their will be a consequence.
When China or ourselves dumps millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the air it is not just our air we are polluting but the planets, in this consideration our own nations cannot be separated from the whole.
We have a conjunction on the horizon a coupling of resulting climate change effects and market forces greed:
The UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) meeting in Rome today was called last month after a heatwave and wildfires in Russia led to a draconian wheat export ban and food riots broke out in Mozambique, killing 13 people. But UN experts heard that pension and hedge funds, sovereign wealth funds and large banks who speculate on commodity markets may also be responsible for inflation in food prices being seen across all continents.
These knock on effects of climate change catastrophes such as the floods in Pakistan and the savage summer fires in Russia will allow investors to speculate on the worlds food supplies that in turn are controlled by a few multinational companies. This again is a destabilizing force and needs to be treated on a global scale, the rise in food costs will marginally affect the rich nations but will be catastrophic especially in West Africa and Pakistan where floods have hit the country so hard:
More than 100,000 children left homeless by Pakistan's floods are in danger of dying because they simply do not have enough to eat, according to UNICEF. Children already weak from living on too little food in poor rural areas before the floods are fighting to stay alive, as diarrhea, respiratory diseases and malaria attack their emaciated bodies.
With the projected rise in food prices across the globe and how much this is also fueled by commodity speculation is of global concern, these price rises will be of a magnitude that begins to effect us in the west as more of our population is burdened by food insecurity.
The forecasts are for wheat and coarse grain prices over the next 10 years to be between 15% and 40% higher in real terms, once adjusted for inflation, than their average levels during the 1997-2006 period, the decade before the price spike of 2007-08. Real prices for vegetable oils are expected to be more than 40% higher and dairy prices are projected to be between 16-45% higher. But rises in livestock prices are expected to be less marked, although world demand for meat is climbing faster than for other farm commodities on the back of rising wealth for some sections of the population in emerging economies.
We need to turn away from the ever increasing demand for meat that doesn't mean we all become vegans but we sensibly reduce our consumption and turn towards a healthier lifestyle. producing meat is inefficient and a massive source of pollution in itself we do not need anything like the quantity we consume.
The high level of meat and saturated fat consumption in the USA and other high income countries exceeds nutritional needs and contributes to high rates of chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus and some cancers. Affluent citizens in middle- and low-income countries are adopting similar high-meat diets and experiencing increased rates of these same chronic diseases. The industrial agricultural system, now the predominant form of agriculture in the USA and increasingly world-wide, has consequences for public health owing to its extensive use of fertilisers and pesticides, unsustainable use of resources and environmental pollution. In industrial animal production there are public health concerns surrounding feed formulations that include animal tissues, arsenic and antibiotics as well as occupational health risks and risks for nearby communities. It is of paramount importance for public health professionals to become aware of and involved in how our food is produced.
Furthermore we do not need our fresh water to be wrapped in plastic bottles; once again this is sheer lunacy on a global impact scale:
Bottled water manufacturers’ encourage the perception that their products are purer and safer than tap water. Bottled water can cost up to 10,000 times more per gallon than tap water. But the reality is that tap water is actually held to more stringent quality standards than bottled water, and some brands of bottled water are just tap water in disguise.
Once again we do not need a new car even if it is less polluting when you drive it manufacturing it produces as much CO2 as running the car for 100,000 miles, its better to hold onto your old one as long as it isn't a real junk heap.
With this in mind, unless you do very high mileage or have a real gas-guzzler, it generally makes sense to keep your old car for as long as it is reliable – and to look after it carefully to extend its life as long as possible. If you make a car last to 200,000 miles rather than 100,000, then the emissions for each mile the car does in its lifetime may drop by as much as 50%, as a result of getting more distance out of the initial manufacturing emissions.
In short almost every decision we make as individuals and independent nations has a knock on effect, our way of life in the west is expensive not only economically but environmentally. The international community is hyper-linked via the environment; it is high time we realized the internet is not the only web in existence; we need to act together.
We must adapt our own perceptions of how we live to be more in tune with the world around us, our governments must be our tools to bring this change about and we must help other nations down a saner path than we have taken thus far. Environmental needs must outweigh the market forces yet there is no need to cut our own throats, we have a brain; it's time we used it more often.
If we don't stop and think; catastrophe awaits around the corner.