Question: Why are poor nations more susceptible to the impacts of global
warming than wealthier ones?
Answer:
Fact: Global warming potentially affects everyone in the world – the rich as well as the poor countries.
Global warming is a phenomenon describe as the gradual amplification of the temperature of the earth’s lower atmosphere brought about by the increase in greenhouse gases and by-products. This was dreadfully manifest during the period of Industrial Revolution where introduction of modern means of work and machineries are flamboyant. Expansion of the world’s agriculture, transportation and manufacturing greatly contributed to the occurrence. There are many factors causative to global warming. Ranging from machineries emissions and technological wastes, other sources include burning of coal and petroleum products. Coal and other related petroleum products are big supplies of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone that deflates the ozone layer. The extensive deforestation also increases the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Animal wastes also give methane gas that brings out chemical compositions for aggravation of the earth’s warming. Consequently, the enlarged domestic animal production increases the tendencies to elevate cases of deforestation, methane production, and consumption of fossil fuels (The Columbia Encyclopedia, 2003).
Evidences on global warming include melting of polar ice; extinction of biological niches and a beginning of new dreadful diseases. According to Mank (2005), “there is substantiation that global warming already caused the average global sea level to rise between four and eight inches during the last 100 years and that the seas are now rising at one tenth of an inch per year.” With this natural occurrence, many countries in the world – both highly industrialized and underdeveloped felt the disruption in all aspects. Developing countries slow down the process of progress because of the various consequences of this nature disturbance. Greatly, poor countries and other Third world nations vastly suffered to its effects that cause serious environmental and human health impacts.
Poor nations are more vulnerable to the effects of global warming both on its scientific and economic perspective. Economically speaking, poor nations have limited resources of revenue. Their economic stratum is distant lower as to compare to richer nations. These poor countries are more centered on the aspect of production of food and industry to maintain the survival of their economy. But due to the effects of this existing phenomenon wherein richer countries contribute greatly to its spreading out, it is no longer important for the developing countries to allocate budget for precautionary measures and standards. Due to lack of capability to spend money for new trends of technology, the acquisition of modern means of technology to help them predict and lessen the effects of the situation is relatively impossible.
On the other hand, agriculture, which is the main source of revenue for poor nations, is greatly and primarily affected by global warming. First, the increase temperature of the weather is very much hazardous to the growth of crops and other vegetations. The effects will surely damaged the production process of every agricultural industry especially farming and plant propagation. Its effects in the production will entirely change the flow of income to every working community. In Calamities 1998 published in Johansen’s The Global Warming Desk, “the decrease of harvest in agricultural product is of China was due to the costliest disaster of 1998, which was the flooding of China ’s Yangtze River that killed more than 3,000 people. The Yangtze basin has lost 85 percent of its woods to logging and agricultural industry” (Johansen, 2002). The vegetation from the riverbanks was demolished by the floodwaters. In the same source, “two-thirds of Bangladesh , which is situated at the mouths of the Ganges and Brahmaputra Rivers , was swamped for several months during 1998, as 30 million inhabitants were left temporarily homeless. Logging upriver in the Himalayas of northern India and Nepal intensify the disaster, as did the fact that the region’s rivers and overflowing plains have been filled with mud and constricted by human urbanization” (Johansen, 2002, p.236). Second, the dropping off of livestock industry is eyed as a solution. Because animal waste contains methane gas that brings out chemical compositions for aggravation of the earth’s warming, there is a possibility that the mass production of farm animals will level down to the exact consumption and need of a given area. But the question of international trade is facing this proposition. How about the exportation of meat to countries with scarce livestock for food consumption? The revenue of livestock business will be out bounded. Instead of helping the nation’s economic structure in export business, it will be a great failure for development. Ironically, agriculture, which is the major source of resources for poor countries, also contributes to production of compounds hazardous and risky for global warming.
Modern agricultural advancements are some possible resolution for poor countries to battle global warming. Cline (1992) predicted unwanted technological changes and improvements that could reduce the extent of damages from such phenomenon. The agricultural industry of a country is one of his focuses. For instance, through the development of miracle seed varieties resistant to drought (Cline, 1992), the problem of agricultural depression in food production will be greatly improve and might be a possible outlet for an opening of world trade for food exportation. It therefore creates a big source of revenue for the host country at the same time surviving the drought and saving its people from hunger. However, Cline (1992) also argued that, “there is no reason to expect unforeseen technological breakthroughs to reduce greenhouse damages and the corresponding benefits of abatement policy action by more (or less) than they reduce the costs of action (p.84).” Still, the phenomenon of global warming is still left as a big natural predicament.
Finally, the aspect of the transport and industry of underprivileged nations will always be substandard. Because highly industrialized nations keep on updating their technology and at the same time enlarging the consumption of materials and substances contributing to global warming, the tendency is that poor nation will be left behind in the end. Substandard equipment will be disposed, thus, creating another nuisance in the environment and ecosystem.
It is apparent that most industrialized countries has greater share in the production of such substances causing global warming because of the presence of technologically advance machineries that uses oil, modern agriculture and high-speed transportation. Some organizations worldwide formed safety measures to minimize production of heat-related substances and by-products. The Kyoto Protocol was created. The Kyoto Protocol as seen on Article 2 is an action for “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” (Gardiner, 2004). Its political chronicle commence with the Earth Summit of 1992. A meeting in Rio de Janeiro was held wherein the countries of the world committed themselves to the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC). But in an article in Brookings Review by James Lindsey (2001), he said “President George W. Bush rejects the Kyoto Protocol as a “fatally flawed” agreement that would harm the American economy. The European Union, Japan , and other industrialized countries counter that Kyoto represents humanity’s best chance for combating global warming and vow to make it work even if Washington sits on the sidelines. Both sides have dug in their heels, and grounds for a compromise are scarce”. Up to now, the debate on Kyoto Protocol continues.
Technologically speaking, poor countries are at risk to global warming because they do no have enough equipment to predict and measure the extent of the problem. The United States of the America and other industrialized countries like Japan and the European Union has its highest and modernized form of technology to see the arising chaos in the environment. As to compare with Third world countries, the level of consequences of the changing weather situations is not accurately forecasted because of obsolete and low technological means of weather reporting. Other nations in the world comprising the poorest level are also at stake. This is not just an issue of technology advancement but also its usage. Maximum usage of technology without proper ecological precautions and warnings
The rest of the world’s poorest nations are still struggling for their protection against the plague of global warming. Precautionary measures are taken into accounts by the government. It very ironic to note down that poor countries in the world will develop by means of high and sustainable technology but at the same time contributing to the effects of global warming. The application of energy from machineries using coal and petroleum, which are main sources of heat, is quite ambivalent. But energy efficiency may prove to be the biggest key to advancing progress in the Third World . The question lies on the aspect of management and maintenance of oil consumption and usage. If rising countries persist to consume a large amount of money in investing with technology, most of their capital on supplying more energy will not prosper because there is no money left to buy the things that were supposed to use to maintain such technologies. Instead of investing to technology to combat global warming, the efforts in increase and coming up with more valuable environment-friendly system of development like using natural gas, organic farming and human work force. Equally, energy efficiency can liberate up enormous amounts of capital to finance development’s essential tasks (Udall, 1990).
As of now, the warfare in global warming is still hot. It is nearly unworkable to give too much weight on how difficult it will be for the world’s leaders, policymakers, and diplomats to counterfeit a coordinated response to the threat of global warming. According to Lindsey (2001),
“…devising a strategy to combat global warming is not like finding a cure for cancer. The ailment’s causes–fossil fuel usage and rampant deforestation–are known. Its symptoms–acid rain, urban air pollution, and ozone depletion–are ubiquitous. Prescribing a cure is child’s play; filling it though, will be a Herculean task. Any effort to halt climate change must be global in scope; it will last for decades, even centuries; and, in one fashion or another, it will affect the lives of nearly everyone on the planet.”
To conclude, it is very important to reiterate that global warming do not only affects poor countries but also the rich ones. But what are more affected are the poor ones who are geographically centered to the location of the earth’s heat. They are susceptible because of problems rooted in the economic and technological aspects and not to mention the holistic phase of a nation varying from government, education, geography and cultural traditions. But even though this is the case, the contributions of rich and developed countries in suppressing the heat of the world are still significant.
Reference:
Cline, W.R. (1992) The Economics of Global Warming. Institute for International
Economucs: Washington , DC .
Gardiner, S.M. (2004) The Global Warming Tragedy and the Dangerous Illusion
of the Kyoto Protocol. Ethics & International Affairs. Volume 18, Issue 1 and Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs: Gale Group.
Johansen, B.E. (2002) The Global Warming Desk. Greenwood Press: Westport ,
CT. 236.
Lindsay, J.M. (2001) “Global warming heats up: uncertainties, both scientific and
political, lie ahead”. Brookings Review; 9/22/2001.
Mank, B. (2005). “Standing Global Warming: Is Injury to All Injury to None”.
Environmental Law. Vol. 35.
The Columbia Encyclopedia Columbia University Press.
Udall, J.R. (1990) “Diplomacy’s Next Great Challenge”. National Forum.
1/1/1990.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment