The Developing Country Debate

I do think that currently developing countries have the ‘right’ to exploit their natural resources to increase their economic wellbeing, with exception. As Richard J. Tobin points out in chapter 15 of the Vig text, there is hypocrisy in developed countries asking developing nations to forgo resource consumption while simultaneously stimulating demand for their resources. “Developing countries quickly emphasize how ironic it is that developed countries, whose increasing consumption creates the demand for tropical woods, are simultaneously calling for a reduction of logging and shifting cultivation in developing countries.” In this way developed countries have forgone their say in the matter. However, if developed countries act in accordance with the greater good and perform environmental due diligence, then it is reasonable to conclude developing nations do not have a ‘right’ to exploit resources that are necessary for the sustainability of the human species.

This of course would naturally include developed countries dramatically reducing their overall consumption as they disproportionally consume energy and produce over 90% of all hazardous materials. In essence developed countries asking developing nations to forgo their economic development via resource consumption, is akin to a junkie asking his family to forgo dinner so he can use the money to buy more drugs. It is self-serving an unsustainable. Until resource consumption parity occurs, resource “rights” are up for grabs.

In regards to climate change expectations, I don’t think industrialized nations should have expectations for developing nations, but rather the other way round. As evident in the Vig readings developed nations use an unreasonably disproportionate amount of resources. This is a minority of the population living unsustainably. Therefore, it is the developed nations that must ameliorate the problem, as they simultaneously are a greater share of the problem and have greater ability to reconcile it.

• As evident in my discussion above I do believe equity between nations should be a goal. It is unreasonable to conclude that an ovarian lottery that determines your place of birth also determines your ‘right’ to a level of pollution emissions and resource consumption.
• If developing nations value economic development more than slowing global warming, developed nations should offset this via economic means. I propose that a willingness to pay for global warming prevention should be included into the price of all products similar to CAFÉ. (the gas guzzler tax.) Developed nations should pay a tax on all goods which can be used to offset the cost of greenhouse gas abatement in nations that can’t afford those costs. In this way all nations participate in the reduction of emissions. Even an extremely nominal tax would amount to a huge financial resource pool for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Perhaps the tax could also be tied to a products carbon footprint and increase with the resources and pollution required to produce the good. In some ways this would be a progressive resource/pollution tax. Of course finding/creating a global entity to administrate this tremendously complex task would be difficult.
• As indicated above, I believe it is reasonable and justified for developing countries to expect a more judicious use of resources by industrialized nations. On balance developing countries are utilizing far less resources.