Chris Milla
Anteneh Tesfaye
ENVS 2
Human Nature, Technology, and the Environment
The Politics of Saving the
Environment
• The purpose of this presentation is to create a foundation of
understanding of both domestic and international political institutions
and their relationship with the environment.
• First, we examined the relationship between economic growth and
the environment. We asked questions such as: Is economic growth
good for the environment or bad?
• Next, we looked at the relationship between democracies and the
environment. We asked questions such as: do democracies benefit
the environment? Are there better alternatives?
• Finally, we looked at international organizations such as the WTO
and examined in relative detail whether trade liberalization is good
for the environment or not.
Economic growth and the Environment
•
Those that argue that economic growth is bad for the environment sight the
fact that economic growth leads to inequality which in turn leads to civil
conflict. Civil conflict and civil unrest make it difficult for governments to
focus their energy on environmental protection (Midlarsky pg. 341).
•
On the other hand, those that argue that economic growth is good for the
environment state that:
– Once a country’s basic needs are dealt with (i.e, infrastructure), the government
can focus on other such needs as environmental protection.
– When industries are wealthier and are flushed with amore funds then they will
readily help the environment (Midlarsky pg. 342).
Democracy and the Environment
•
It has long been assumed that democracies tend to treat the environment
better than totalitarian regimes. Evidence of this is the total destruction of
the environment carried out by Eastern European countries during the cold
war. In their rush to catch up with the west, in terms of industrialization,
these regimes paid no mind to the environment.
•
Still, does this mean that democracies are good for the environment?
•
Those who believe democracies are good for the environment argue that
(Midlarsky pg. 344-45):
– Democracies respect human rights
– Democracies are more responsive to citizenry (i.e, such as right before
elections)
– Democracies allow the free-flow of information making it an environment
for political learning.
– Democracies tend to cooperate with each other (this means they can
copy each other’s environmental technology)
– Business within Democracies are subject to incentives and sanctions
which means that environmental groups have the ability to lobby for
legislation that will cost companies money
•
On the other hand, those that feel that democracies are not good for the
environment argue that( Midlarsky pg. 343):
– Democracies have to persuade their population to spend money on the
environment. This process is often slow and ineffective, totalitarian regimes have
the ability to enact immediate change.
– In a democracy the focus is on the individual and not on the community or on the
environment.
– “Under the protection of property rights, both individual persons and, more
importantly, corporations, can act willfully, even recklessly without regard to
impact on the environment” (343).
Trade Liberalization and the Environment
• The objectives of trade liberalization and environmental protection
seem to be the same. Both want to “optimize the efficient use of the
environment making sure that economic growth is environmentally
sustainable” (Brack pg. 497).
• Yet, trade liberalizers and environmental protectors are often in
conflict with each other. In order to understand international political
institutions it is important to first understand how trade can be good
for the environment and how it be detrimental.
•
Those that feel that trade can potentially be good for the environment argue
that:
– Trade leads to comparative advantage which helps promote environmental
sustainability because countries focus on one good rather than all goods.
– Higher national income allows companies the ability to assist in cleaning up the
environment.
– Natural resources are less likely to be priced below cost (Brack pg. 498)
“Prices may still not reflect the true environmental costs of production and
consumption but at least they are less likely to be subsidized” (498)
• On the other hand, those that do not agree with the
above claims say that:
– Economic growth resulting from an increase in trade leads to an
increase in pollution and the unsustainable consumption of
natural resources.
– Trade oftentimes undermines environmental standards
• “Similarly, a country with strict environmental regulations may find
its economy undermined by competition from other countries with
more lax environmental standards” (Brack pg. 501)
– making country want to relax its regulations in order to gain greater
market share
– The international trading system, according to trade regulations
and agreements made in part through the WTO, cater to trade
interests rather than environmental ones.
Why International Organizations Might not be as
Effective
• Like all democratic nations, decision making process can be slow.
Especially when the international organization contains several
dozen nations with different views and interests.
– For example, “the difficulty the CTE (Committee on Trade and
Environment) has had in coming to decision can be attributed in part to
the decision-making process of the WTO and its organs. The WTO,
despite having 128 members in 1997, continues the decision making by
consensus followed under GATT 1947” (The American Journal of
International Law Vol. 91:268)
• However, environmental issues don’t allow such luxurious decisionmaking process
– “Environmental threats are unambiguously overt, things may be too far
gone to retrieve the situation. When you don’t see it, you can still act to
prevent it but it is denied status by ‘realist’ politics, so you can’t; when
you do see it and it is granted status and you could act, you probably
can’t because natural processes have passed a point of no return”
(Politics and the Environment, 729).