Week 15 (Blog)

This seems like a silly point to argue. Sure, we can say that other countries should try to develop while polluting less, but unles developed countries are going to step up to the plate and 1) reduce their own emissions, 2) help developing countries leap frog in technology, and 3) utilize newer cleaner technologies (so that they develop and become more cost effective) then we need to button our lip and stop dictating what the developing countries should be doing. Developing countries have a long history of taking advantage of the under dog.

May 17, 2006

Is it better to be clean and poor or dirty and...less poor?

We've talked before about environmental Kuznets curves. In it's simplest form, the EKC implies that a poor country will develop at the expense of the environment, but eventually, additional development will lead to environmental improvements. Environmental economists have struggled to see the EKC in action. Some studies suggest the EKC exists while others don't. Despite the lack of evidence, it looks like developing countries are starting to design EKC based development policy. From Reuters (via ENN.com):

India said on Tuesday that poor nations had to give priority to ending poverty rather than fighting global warming at 189-nation U.N. climate talks criticised by environmentalists as a rambling talk shop.

Nations from Papua New Guinea to Iceland gave speeches during a novel two-day U.N. "dialogue" trying to bridge huge policy divides about how to slow a rise in temperatures that many scientists say could trigger catastrophic climate changes.

In one of the most forceful talks, India told rich nations to take the lead in cutting emissions of heat-trapping gases from fossil fuels, saying India needed more energy to end poverty for the 35 percent of its people living on less than a dollar a day.

I'm trying to picture the rich countries reaction: No you can't develop at the expense of the environment. Sure we're rich and we pollute, but that doesn't mean you can't be richer and clean. Just because we have nucular weapons doesn't mean that you should. Oops, I think I got my topics confused. Har de har har. It's a famous double standard!! Welcome double standard, I didn't think I'd see you today! Come and have a cup of Tea!

Posted by Tim Haab at 07:08 AM