Global Environmental Change and the Troubling Issue of Inequity
�· Nine of the warmest years in past decade have been the warmest in the past century.
�· Artic ice has thawed 40% from previous levels.
�· We are witnessing a worldwide retreat of glaciers, decreased levels of permafrost, and shorter periods of frozen lakes and rivers.
�· 15000 sq. km of Antarctic ice recently disappeared in a two month period
�· Global average surface temperature has increased by 0.6�° C over 20th century (most industrial yet of all centuries)
Ã?· CO2 levels have skyrocketed in recent years (as a result of industry and deforestation) – resulting in stratospheric cooling that can lead to a slow recovery of the already injured ozone layer and creating an insulating layer of gases around the world that can potentially increase average global temperatures
�· The 2003 heat wave in Europe is one of the worst on record, causing 35,000 deaths.
In time, these changes are sure to affect us all. However, those hardest hit and those first hit will be those who are least able to defend themselves – the poor, the weak, the elderly, and so on. In fact, many of these populations are already feeling the results of this human triggered environmental change. Take for example the 2003 European heat wave. Of the 35,000 deaths, the vast majority was among elderly populations. Having a greater incidence of limited mobility and social interaction, this population was not equipped to handle the rapid change in temperature, and suffered serious consequences.
The wealthy and healthy have the ability to protect themselves better from the deteriorating state of the environment. The poor simply don’t have the same luxury. If wealthy nations continue to produce air pollution that contributes to the depletion of the ozone layer and global warming, the world’s poorest people will suffer the most because their livelihood often depends upon immediate agricultural resources that are directly influenced by the environment. Living in a wealthy and developed nation, we have the privilege of shopping at a supermarket that is stocked by agricultural imports from around the world. If the market in one part of the world fails as a result of deteriorating climactic conditions, we simply import from another part of the world that has yet to be affected. If the local population of the area affected by the environmental change does not have the luxury of supermarkets and global importation (a likely possibility), the inhabitants face dire consequences. Meanwhile, those of us in the wealthy part of the world continue living our lives as we had – with perhaps the minor inconvenience of a slight price increase, yet continue on with our lifestyles of polluting and environmental disruption.
Obviously, the percentage of wealth is not distributed equally amongst the inhabitants of the world. In fact, the distribution is so unequal that 10% of the world’s population maintains 80% of the world’s wealth. This leads to an unequal distribution of resources, with a small portion of the world’s population monopolizing most of the world’s natural assets. Wealthy, industrialized countries buy emission levels from poorer countries, effectively polluting more than their share to support their economy. And despite where air pollution comes from, it has the potential to affect everyone. The pollutants of a factory in New Jersey will ultimately affect the atmosphere of Nairobi just as it affects its own.
Compounding the problem is that wealthy and powerful nations that use up their share of natural resources turn to other nations that still have natural reserves, often under less than amicable terms. When the interests of two nations oppose, history has taught that international conflict of varying proportions can ensue. One might say the recent war in Iraq may have been influenced by the oil reserves of the Middle East. In this sense, though the poor are not feeling immediate environmental effects, as in the case of the elderly Europeans, they are subjected to severe social consequences that are the result of our diminishing resources and changing environment.
The climate, however, is of course not the only part of the environment that is subject to human influence and change. For example, toxicity levels can have a serious affect on those who rely upon their immediate environment for food. Inuit populations in the north, for example, have recently been dealing with health epidemics that are a result of one of their native food sources – whales. Whale meat that is tainted with chemicals has been slowly poisoning the population. (Animals at the top of the food chain have a greater concentration of chemicals in their bodies because they eat other animals lower on the food chain that have also been exposed). As Inuit populations are not serious contributors to the production or dissemination of chemicals, it is clear it is not they who have been putting these chemicals into their environment. Rather the chemicals are the result of wealthier populations’ manufacturing plants and industrial and civic waste. This scenario is even worse than the one in which wealthy populations create air pollution because the wealthy nations don’t feel the immediate repercussions of their actions (at least not to the degree of the isolated and relatively poor Inuit population that is eating the tainted meat).
Global environmental change is an immense problem that has no easily identifiable solution. At this point, as members of a wealthy nation with a profound potential to affect the fate of the world, we must begin to act responsibly and encourage others to act in kind. In addition to cleaning up our corporate environmental practices, we need to increase awareness of these issues and educate those others who have the capacity to contribute to the problem and encourage them to work for the greater global benefit. The renowned ecologist and expert in public health, Richard Levins writes, “Either we suppress the aspirations of most of the world or we develop in a way that kills us all. But if two equally just and humane goals (rising and equitable standard of living, sustainability of our life support system) come into conflict, we are asking for too little. We can look for a different pathway of development.” I say, we “must” look for a different pathway of development.
