a) For the short-term (say, 5 years), are the national governments of rich and p
ID: 3503374 • Letter: A
Question
a) For the short-term (say, 5 years), are the national governments of rich and poor nations alike justified in putting environmental concerns ‘on hold’ in order to avoid the negative economic consequences that are sure to result from immediate adoption of stringent environmental regulations? (b) Does it constitute moral bankruptcy to take economic factors such as the present perilous state of the economy into account when it is a known fact that human health is being jeopardized by environmental degradation?
Explanation / Answer
Note: This response is in UK English, please paste the response to MS Word and you should be able to spot discrepancies easily. You may elaborate the answer based on personal views or your classwork if necessary.
(Answer) (a) Firstly, environmental solutions have been put on hold for decades now. The effect of greenhouse gases, holes in the ozone, depleting fossil fuels and increase in the rate of pollution has been noticed from the industrial revolution onwards.
If not all at once, at least one solution at a time could have been adopted by rich and poor countries alike. The simple act of recycling might, in fact, be a boon to the economy since there wouldn’t have to be larger investments in production.
It is safe to say that “delaying” is what has been done so far. Further delay will lead to the earth being in a morbid state where no life, let alone economy can function at all.
Secondly, the idea for bringing about environmental changes is to create a “sustainable” way of life. “Sustainable” entails something that can sustain the economy and the environment simultaneously. If a nation can invest in weaponry, defence etc, they can certainly invest in recycling resources, reducing emissions etc.
(b) If life goes on the way it goes on now, there would be serious problems for our posterity. Issues like skin and lung cancer, diseases, poor life expectancy, contaminants in the air, water and food etc. would jeopardise their future. Just because we are not the future generation that does not mean that we do not have to bother about it.
Apathy towards a problem that we cause and do not have to bear the brunt of is moral bankruptcy and sheer selfishness. Especially, when the thing valued instead is a rich economy.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.