5 ms·

Environmental stewardship is actually something that economists refer to as a luxury good --- it's something you'll start purchasing the more disposable money y

Environmental stewardship is actually something that economists refer to as a luxury good --- it's something you'll start purchasing the more disposable money you have. Which makes sense, if I have to choose between starvation and air pollution, I'll take air pollution. Now my belly is full, but I can't breath? Now maybe I'll think about spending some money on cleaner air. That's why I find the West's scolding of developing economies for environmental degradation to be hypocritical. If we really care, then we'll give those countries the money to preserve their environment.

smb06 10y ago
It shouldn't be a zero-sum game where you have to choose between starvation and air pollution. The west did not go about industrial development in an environmentally friendly way and that only increases the onus on the developing countries to learn from their mistakes, instead of repeating them.
- eyelidlessness 10y ago
  The west hasn't ceased industrial development, and we'd be remiss to pretend that we have. The fact that we've outsourced a lot of the costs to China and then to other countries doesn't change the fact that we extract growth from dumping toxins and pollutants into the environment. If we want to preach learning from mistakes, we should take our privileged position and lead the charge. We do the opposite of that, externalizing the costs of ongoing industrialization to societies that can least afford the costs. The ultimate math is a zero-sum game. Industrialization produces efficiency and waste, and a lot of the meaningful waste comes in the form of harm to our future environment. We haven't actually devised a way to produce industrial goods without producing massive byproducts that harm people somewhere. Until we have, the best course of action we can take is to reduce consumption. But so far we've done the opposite.
  - zhte415 10y ago
    > The ultimate math is a zero-sum game. It is most definitely not a zero sum game so far, but there certainly are losers.
  - moultano 10y ago
    >externalizing the costs of ongoing industrialization to societies that can least afford the costs. We regulate pollution, China mostly doesn't. It's not clear to me what policy you think the West should adopt to fix this.
    - vkou 10y ago
      Tax imports of products that pollute as part of their manufacturing process. There, this both evens the paying field, creates an incentive for everyone to play ball, and promotes non-polluting economic growth.
      - moultano 10y ago
        That's reasonable, but hard to enact without inviting retaliation. I'm not sure if the resulting retaliation would make the overall policy a net win or loss.
seanmcdirmid 10y ago
The west doesn't really do more than hand wrong China on the environment, and why should they? China is basically destroying their country so they can make cheap junk for the west! I mean, where else can they process rare earth elements so cheaply? Why China continues to do this at this point is a mystery, but the west isn't complaining much. Perhaps the CCP is afraid of moving to a consumer driven economy, people whose lifestyles are raised too much begin demanding political rights.... Honestly, if China wants to avoid complete environmental collapse, they'll have to drastically change their ways soon. You can say the west did it and survived, but the west didn't have 1.4 billion people doing it with the level of toxicity of a modern economy. The brink China is at now (and India is approaching) is unprecedented.
- Joof 10y ago
  It's funny because we produce more pollution per capita in the US (even if China produces more overall).
  - ekianjo 10y ago
    Because the level of life of US citizens is much higher on average. The wealthier you are the more you consume and therefore pollute.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - danmaz74 10y ago
    I think the problem (for Chinese people) is that China ha much more dense population than the US.
  - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
    The US has more arable land, so can be a net food exporter, though we have to wonder if China's almonds are worth so much California water during a drought. But otherwise the rest of our net exports are fairly high value, airplanes and IP so to speak, and have low environmental impact.
bad_user 10y ago
What's the point of having your belly full if you have asthma or get cancer at 30 or not have water to drink? You're making a false dichotomy there, these countries are polluted not necessarily because they are more productive that way, or because it raises the standards of living, but more because of corruption. By saying that other countries should pay up, you're basically saying that other countries should pay for their corruption. The problem is that we are all in this together. What India does in its territory affects me in Europe, so I'm left wondering why I should pay for that. And don't give me the per capita stats, when they have had a serious natality problem. I have a better idea. What is hypocritical is for the west to have regulations, but then to allow imports from countries that don't. If this has no other solution, then the logical path is to tax or ban those imports. Wouldn't that be more fair?
- jsmthrowaway 10y ago
  > What's the point of having your belly full if you have asthma or get cancer at 30 or not have water to drink? Making it to 30 as a member of your nation's populace is a better deal for your nation than starvation and food riots. When it comes to citizenry, nations have a weird, unspoken incentive to keep you alive and in the workforce so as to exploit your output. That's not sarcasm or pessimism; one just doesn't often think about it in that simple of terms, but that thought process is a useful illustration around the point you're making. I'm not well educated in economics but I'd wager this is a concept of some kind that is known. Belly full is near the top of critical sovereign state priorities. Environment is near the bottom. That's not really a dichotomy, one just has to understand the incentives for a nation. If a nation can work you for twenty years that's a start, and helps build the budget for 30, then 40, then clean air. And so on.
semi-extrinsic 10y ago
> if I have to choose between starvation and air pollution, I'll take air pollution Exactly this is driving the push for GMO food crops in Asia and Africa. I have a few biologist friends who've been around on field trips and conferences, meeting people who are absolutely outraged at how certain people in the West are trying to ban/sabotage GMO food. If you have the choice between mass starvation and death versus maybe hurting some part of the local ecosystem, it's really a no-brainer.

smb06 10y ago

It shouldn't be a zero-sum game where you have to choose between starvation and air pollution. The west did not go about industrial development in an environmentally friendly way and that only increases the onus on the developing countries to learn from their mistakes, instead of repeating them.

eyelidlessness 10y ago
The west hasn't ceased industrial development, and we'd be remiss to pretend that we have. The fact that we've outsourced a lot of the costs to China and then to other countries doesn't change the fact that we extract growth from dumping toxins and pollutants into the environment. If we want to preach learning from mistakes, we should take our privileged position and lead the charge. We do the opposite of that, externalizing the costs of ongoing industrialization to societies that can least afford the costs. The ultimate math is a zero-sum game. Industrialization produces efficiency and waste, and a lot of the meaningful waste comes in the form of harm to our future environment. We haven't actually devised a way to produce industrial goods without producing massive byproducts that harm people somewhere. Until we have, the best course of action we can take is to reduce consumption. But so far we've done the opposite.
- zhte415 10y ago
  > The ultimate math is a zero-sum game. It is most definitely not a zero sum game so far, but there certainly are losers.
- moultano 10y ago
  >externalizing the costs of ongoing industrialization to societies that can least afford the costs. We regulate pollution, China mostly doesn't. It's not clear to me what policy you think the West should adopt to fix this.
  - vkou 10y ago
    Tax imports of products that pollute as part of their manufacturing process. There, this both evens the paying field, creates an incentive for everyone to play ball, and promotes non-polluting economic growth.
    - moultano 10y ago
      That's reasonable, but hard to enact without inviting retaliation. I'm not sure if the resulting retaliation would make the overall policy a net win or loss.

seanmcdirmid 10y ago

The west doesn't really do more than hand wrong China on the environment, and why should they? China is basically destroying their country so they can make cheap junk for the west! I mean, where else can they process rare earth elements so cheaply? Why China continues to do this at this point is a mystery, but the west isn't complaining much. Perhaps the CCP is afraid of moving to a consumer driven economy, people whose lifestyles are raised too much begin demanding political rights.... Honestly, if China wants to avoid complete environmental collapse, they'll have to drastically change their ways soon. You can say the west did it and survived, but the west didn't have 1.4 billion people doing it with the level of toxicity of a modern economy. The brink China is at now (and India is approaching) is unprecedented.

Joof 10y ago
It's funny because we produce more pollution per capita in the US (even if China produces more overall).
- ekianjo 10y ago
  Because the level of life of US citizens is much higher on average. The wealthier you are the more you consume and therefore pollute.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- danmaz74 10y ago
  I think the problem (for Chinese people) is that China ha much more dense population than the US.
- seanmcdirmid 10y ago
  The US has more arable land, so can be a net food exporter, though we have to wonder if China's almonds are worth so much California water during a drought. But otherwise the rest of our net exports are fairly high value, airplanes and IP so to speak, and have low environmental impact.

bad_user 10y ago

What's the point of having your belly full if you have asthma or get cancer at 30 or not have water to drink? You're making a false dichotomy there, these countries are polluted not necessarily because they are more productive that way, or because it raises the standards of living, but more because of corruption. By saying that other countries should pay up, you're basically saying that other countries should pay for their corruption. The problem is that we are all in this together. What India does in its territory affects me in Europe, so I'm left wondering why I should pay for that. And don't give me the per capita stats, when they have had a serious natality problem. I have a better idea. What is hypocritical is for the west to have regulations, but then to allow imports from countries that don't. If this has no other solution, then the logical path is to tax or ban those imports. Wouldn't that be more fair?

jsmthrowaway 10y ago
> What's the point of having your belly full if you have asthma or get cancer at 30 or not have water to drink? Making it to 30 as a member of your nation's populace is a better deal for your nation than starvation and food riots. When it comes to citizenry, nations have a weird, unspoken incentive to keep you alive and in the workforce so as to exploit your output. That's not sarcasm or pessimism; one just doesn't often think about it in that simple of terms, but that thought process is a useful illustration around the point you're making. I'm not well educated in economics but I'd wager this is a concept of some kind that is known. Belly full is near the top of critical sovereign state priorities. Environment is near the bottom. That's not really a dichotomy, one just has to understand the incentives for a nation. If a nation can work you for twenty years that's a start, and helps build the budget for 30, then 40, then clean air. And so on.

semi-extrinsic 10y ago

> if I have to choose between starvation and air pollution, I'll take air pollution Exactly this is driving the push for GMO food crops in Asia and Africa. I have a few biologist friends who've been around on field trips and conferences, meeting people who are absolutely outraged at how certain people in the West are trying to ban/sabotage GMO food. If you have the choice between mass starvation and death versus maybe hurting some part of the local ecosystem, it's really a no-brainer.