|
|
 |
|
|
Pages: 1
sustainability OR development?
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: vulpes71
The recent Earth Summit elicited disagreements from participating countries. I'm not even sure if something's will be solved in this once in 10 years conference. If you were a representative in that summit, which do you think should be the priority: sustainability OR development?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...29_summit5.html
Posted by: AngstMerchant
man, this article kinda under-cuts some of the things I have taken for granted for a while. Could the environmentalist front have an alterior motive?? Why would they?? This is why I sort of isolate myself from media: you never know if you're getting a spin.
When I first started reading this, I just assumed that I would choose sustainability. But, if the article is speaking objectively, maybe it would be smart to pursue development. But this article seems to target the Kyoto Summit. Maybe this has a spin. . . .maybe it's striking a serruptitious blow for the industrialized front.
I'm afraid. . . .hold me. 
Posted by: Null Actor
I've always said that educating and feeding the third world is the best way to deal with their problems... and I'd have to agree, focusing on global warming alone is almost selfish in a way. It would be done to make ourselves feel better, when the article is correct, the money could be much better used elsewhere.
The end of the article makes me wonder though.
 Quote:
|
But in Johannesburg the American decision could be recast as an attempt to focus on the most important issues on the global agenda, basically championing fundamental issues such as clean drinking water, sanitation, health, and poverty reduction. Such a move would regain for the U.S. the moral high ground. When the U.S. rejected the Kyoto treaty last year, the EU talked endlessly about how it was left to them "to save the world." But if the U.S. is willing to commit the resources to ensure development it might actually end up being the savior.
|
The US rejected the Kyoto Treaty because they didn't want to limit their emissions. However, numerical cost will always be a factor in decisions such as this. So I'm forced to wonder... if the US didn't want to pay the 150 billion per year to adapt to the Kyoto Treaty, will they really front the money in order to help third world countries?
Food for thought.
Posted by: Ghetto Blasta
Quote:
Originally posted by Nova Z
The US rejected the Kyoto Treaty because they didn't want to limit their emissions. However, numerical cost will always be a factor in decisions such as this. So I'm forced to wonder... if the US didn't want to pay the 150 billion per year to adapt to the Kyoto Treaty, will they really front the money in order to help third world countries?
|
A very good question. I'm kind of leaning towards the negative though. From what I hear, it just doesn't seem like something the Bush admin would be inclined to give that much money to.
But I suppose that's why there's organizations like UNICEF. Doesn't 5cents get 10 kids an immunization to some nasty disease or something like that?
Posted by: Gunslinger
Programs like a UNICEF are just a small piece of the puzzle. The reason they can be used as a buzz word, is because they have a loud voice and a large political lobby.
I don't know how to lean on this. As far as the government goes, a more liberal administration may have signed the Kyoto treaty. Congress may be able to get aid packages passed to third world countries, et al, but there's a republican in the big office so that's a roadblock.
Food for though, indeed.
Posted by: vulpes71
"In contrast, focusing on development has the advantage of both helping people today and creating the foundation for a better tomorrow."
I thought I'd choose sustainability too. And I thought I'd choose development...
What could be the motives of the environmentalists? It's so hard to decide whether to save ourselves or the future generation's. Yes, pushing development will both benefit this and the next generation. But how about the immediate need?
Posted by: Ghetto Blasta
I think this Ozone/pollution stuff is a part of a dastly scheme by power hungry environmentalist trying to take over the world!
Weren't the badguys in Rainbow 6 some crazy environmentalist guys? Or maybe that's Cobra Event....
|
|
|
|
|
