1. Based on the definition on exploit provided in a comment by one of our fellow students, use to greatest advantage, developing would and should have the right to exploit natural resources such as forest wood or oil reserves. If you follow a free market environmentalist point of view, which mandates all problems shall be correct through the proper definition of property rights then a developing country could use any resource they chose as they see fit, so long as they own it. Hardin’s lifeboat analogy in the reading is a valid point, and a viable one, if you’re one of the 50 on the boat. For the rest of the stragglers, if the boat capsized they would be no worse off than before.
So, may take is if divvy-up all of the resources and assets in the world evenly then resources exploitation would not be a right. Otherwise, as a member of the developed rich, I’ll do my best to educate and inform the developing world of the implication of exploitation, but not blame them if they ignored me as a hypocrite.
2. With respect to climate change the same rational applies. “Do as I say not as I have done” is a tough sale, especially if the only loser by non-action is me, and those who have done as I have.
The token response to question and issues such as this is to educate, inform, and set the standard with emissions reduction. Blah, blah, blah…
At the end of the day, there are winners and losers in every facet of life. So, should equity be the goal, absolutely, but as far as emissions reduction goes, what about the sins of the past. Hardin says they can’t be undone. True, but the proceeds can be redistributed to justify global participation in the program. Wait, that would mean real long-term change and who wants that… Who is really willing to make a true sacrifice that would actually reduce their standard of living? Sure, give to charity, but would you cut your own food rations to help out starving farmer in Africa. Would Bush, Clinton, Gore, Buffet, Gates, Oprah or anybody else really change their consumption habits in such a manner? Don’t even give me that charity stuff, they like everybody in the developed world over consume and exploit world resources.
Should developing nations participate in emission reduction? What do you think? They’re starving and Al Gore flies around the world and talks about GHG reduction at $250,000 a pop. Sign me up…
What expectations should we have of developing nation? If they were smart, they’d tell us to go pound sand, so long as we did it with a clean burning motor and not in their backyard.
I know, I’m a heathen, but the truth is I believe in environmental justice and resource equity with every fiber of my existence. I’d give up me share if everybody else did, and you know what else, so would most of you, but there are those that wouldn’t and they would let everybody suffer to increase their own bottom line. Liberal, and conservative a like we all know who they, and they run the country.
George, Dick, Barack, Joe, Hank, Tim, Condy, Hillary, and on and on…
They’re all rich and they all scammed others to get there.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I am truly thankful that you are honest and blunt.
ReplyDeleteAlthough there are some people that are rich and have scammed others to get there, I see that the response of public administrators or implementers to be what is considered best for their citizenry.......... that means for some only those citizens to rich countries, for others those of developing nations, and for others, citizens of the world.
History proves that public administrators don't do that. Look at the AZ alternative fuel fiasco. That clown, who chaired the bill, had 1800 fake vehicle claims through a company that his buddy set up. $5 million turned to $500 million and the State had to renig on the deal.
ReplyDeleteLook at Bush, enough said.
And even Barack...
He put in a guy who trashed the fed, cheated on his own taxes because they where "too complicated to file" to do what else but run the Treasury Department.
What's sad is that I'm not making any of this up it's real.
I'd be in jail if I did that
Find me public administrators who actually cares about the citizens and not the lobbiest.
I'll support them...
I agree with your analysis that it is great if you are the one in the boat but if your not then what have you got to lose. The Lifeboat Ethics does show valid problems but what we need are viable solutions,even if not perfect, they can be better than letting the majority drown.
ReplyDelete