Essay On Nature Environment And Development

Author

Abstract

This thesis consists of four self-contained papers, which are all related to important environmental and natural resource issues from a developing country perspective. Paper [I] concerns climate policy and addresses the potential welfare gains of introducing a technology transfer from the North (richer countries) to the South (poorer countries). The results largely depend on the environmental policy in the pre- transfer resource allocation and, in particular, whether or not the South abates its own emissions. Although the technology transfer is desirable from a “global social planners” point of view, it is shown that the incentives to use the transfer might be weak from the perspective of the North; at least if the South takes its own measures to reduce emissions. However, in a situation where the North is committed to emission reductions according to the Kyoto protocol, it is shown that there will clearly be incentives for the North to use the technology transfer in order to reach the Kyoto targets in a more cost efficient way. In paper [II], the likely effects of an environmental fiscal reform in Namibia are examined by means of a Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) model. The results show that the introduction of an environmental fiscal reform, where taxes on natural and environmental resources (fish rents, energy and water) are recycled to the economy in different ways might give rise to benefits in terms of GDP, employment and income distribution, in addition to the environmental impacts. While subsidizing unskilled labour would give the most favourable outcome in terms of real GDP and employment impacts, a decrease in food taxes might be a more interesting option if GDP, employment, income distribution and environmental impacts are considered in combination. In paper [III], the value of irrigation water used for different crop alternatives in the Hardap region in Southern Namibia is estimated. The study finds that all crop alternatives that farmers in the region currently choose among, will remain financially viable after the planned increases in user charges. However, if full cost recovery is to be achieved in the future, substantial changes in the agricultural production will most likely be necessary. The method is also extended in order to study the potential effects on total water demand if further increases in user charges are implemented. Paper [IV] studies the likely effects of exogenous international food and oil price shocks on the Namibian economy. This is particularly interesting in a country where the domestic consumption of corn and petroleum products is mainly imported, and where water scarcity represents one of the main constraints to agricultural expansion. The results show that the Namibian economy will be negatively affected from the food and oil price increases, and water scarcity will further limit the ability of the economy to adapt to international oil and food price increases.

Suggested Citation

  • Sahlén, Linda, 2009. "Essays on Environmental and Development Economics - Public Policy, Resource Prices and Global Warming," Umeå Economic Studies 762, Umeå University, Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:hhs:umnees:0762

    Listed:
    • Sahlén, Linda

      () (Department of Economics, Umeå University)

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hhs:umnees:0762. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (David Skog). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/inumuse.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    I.  Introduction

    Earth as we know it is an incredibly complex and fragile network of interconnected systems that have developed slowly over the last 4.5 billion years or so.  From the ashes of the Big Bang this planet emerged as a mass of energy and elements.  From that newly born mass of energy and elements evolved structured, dynamic systems of solids, liquids, and gases.  The evolution of this planet continued to unfold over billions of years in such a unique way that eventually conditions arose with the ability to foster life.

    From the smallest microorganisms to the largest animals, all life on Earth has a common ancestor.  Everything is connected to everything.  So how is it that our species has come to dominate the landscape in such a short period of time?  Furthermore, what gives us the right to do so?  In 3.5 billion years of life on Earth everything has followed a natural course of evolution.  However, our rapid success as a species has begun to affect this natural order.  With our population at seven billion and climbing, we have played a tremendous role in the disruption of the Earth’s natural systems.  As we continue to grow and have a greater impact on the Earth’s systems, it is imperative that we address our role and relationship with nature.

    The ability of humans to manipulate the landscape and recognize the consequences of doing so puts us in a peculiar position.  As a species we are assigned the duty to provide and proliferate.  Our goal is to achieve stability for ourselves and our kin.  However we also have an obligation to maintain the environment, as we depend on the resources and services it provides.  The question then becomes: what is our role in nature?  Do we have the right to manipulate the land, factory farm animals, and pollute waterways?  Or do we have an obligation to reduce our numbers and merely subsist?  In order to answer these questions we must rely on our knowledge of Earth, evolution, and our influence on the environment.

    II.  History

    Our relationship with nature has historically been one of imbalance and overuse.  Nearly every step in human history has unfortunately been accompanied with a leap in environmental degradation.  At first, humans were incredibly in-tune with their surroundings.  Nomadic hunter-gatherer tribes used to roam the lands, following the ebb and flow of the seasons.  These tribes had a measurable impact on the environment, but their influence was relatively manageable due to their population size.  With advancements in technology and agriculture though, humans began to find more efficient ways of sustaining themselves.  These advancements allowed for more permanent settlements, which led to rapid population growth and a distancing from nature.

    As society evolved, populations grew and more and more resources were required to fuel the expansion.  With breakthroughs in agriculture, settlements became more permanent and cities began to take shape.  This shift to city life inadvertently led to a distancing from nature.  While many people were still in-tune with nature on a subsistent level, the need for more and more resources began to change our regard for nature.

    Although our distancing from nature began several thousand years ago with advancements in agriculture and social order, it is the age of industry to which we owe our modern regard for nature.  The growth of cities allowed for a separation between people and nature and our obsession with convenience and efficiency beckoned a new perspective on the environment.  With technological advancements, nature became something we were no longer apart of and entirely subject to, but something that we could control and profit off of.  The growth of industry enabled humans to truly dominate the landscape and disrupt the natural systems that have been in place for billions of years.

    As we have removed ourselves further and further from nature, we have developed a willing ignorance of our role and relationship within it.  With the growth of cities and trade we have moved from a subsistent, sustainable economy to one of greed and exploitation.  Humans have always had an impact on the environment, but with the age of industry that impact has been ultra-magnified.  Population growth has been exponentiated, cities have become the primary place of residence, and the majority of the world is now out of touch with the workings of nature.

    Although every species plays a unique role in the biosphere and inherently has its own impact, not every species has the cognitive ability to measure their influence or the capacity to change it.  Humans are unique in that respect, which is the root of the problem.  We are capable of understanding our influence over nature, but we tend to ignore the Earth’s reaction to our presence.  I am not arguing that we purposefully degrade nature, but that environmental degradation is an inherent trait of our population’s perpetual progression.  We know we are crippling the environment.  We have the ability to do something about it.  Therefore, we should make change where change is necessary.

    III.  Economy

    The size of our population and its incessant desire to expand has an obvious impact on the environment.  However, that impact is magnified with the demands of industry and capitalism.  In his book, Regarding Nature, Andrew McLaughlin identifies industrialism and the capitalist mindset as being especially influential on our regard for nature: “The economic systems that we construct and live within are, I suggest, the primary immediate causes of our relations between society and the rest of nature” (Regarding Nature, P. 12).  Further causing a perceived division from nature is the economic structure we have allowed to infect most of the world.

    Capitalism is an especially destructive force in our regard for nature as it encourages a monetary-driven social hierarchy based on the encroaching exploitation of our world’s resources.  Our relationship with nature has now become purely economic.  We do not associate ourselves as a part of nature because we use it for profit.  Forests are cut down for the profits of the lumber industry and to make room for livestock.  Animals that we are undoubtedly related to, that have senses and the ability to socialize are slaughtered by the billions to feed an increasingly carnivorous population.  Resources such as oil and food are all unevenly distributed throughout the world and therefore used as a platform for profit.  All the while the environment bears the grunt of our greed.

    We not only encourage a division amongst ourselves through the commoditization of the world’s resources, we encourage a division between man and nature.  In order to reconstruct our views of nature and understand our place within it, it is important to reconsider our relationship with each other and our surroundings.  As Aldo Leopold puts it, man “…has not learned to think like a mountain” (A Sand County Almanac, P. 11).  We have to consider ourselves as part of a bigger picture.  Industry and capitalism rely heavily on ignorance and individualism.  However, the reality is that we are all dependent upon each other in one way or another.

    IV.  Time for Change

    Humans play a vital role in nature just like everything else.  What separates us from nature though, is the ability to understand our place within it.  This cognitive capacity of ours has historically been the cause of a perceived division between man and nature.  However, in order to achieve a sustainable future in which humans assume a more natural role and have less of an impact it is imperative that we reconsider our role and relationship with nature.  A change in the way we regard nature has obvious political, economic, and social repercussions, but our cognitive ability obliges us to reevaluate our position in the world rather than continue to degrade it.

    There are a number of ways in which we can begin to reconsider our relationship with nature, but all of which require an enormous effort.  Through a universal education curriculum, it is possible to encourage people everywhere to consider themselves as part of a larger picture.  By teaching people about the environment, evolution, and ecology, we can provide them with the tools for change.  Lewis Mumford imagined a social revolution brought about by a change in values through educational reform: “The humanizing of technology and the protection of diversity were both contingent on a fundamental change in values” (Minding Nature, P.219).  In order to bring about necessary change it is critical that people take action.  Through a universal environmental education program it is possible to galvanize people into forming new ideas and opinions of the world and to understand their place within it.

    A universal education program would go a long way in encouraging change in how we view each other and our environment.  Changing attitudes are a primary component in achieving a sustainable future – one in which nature is allowed to run its course without human intervention.  Gregg Easterbrook discusses a similar future in his The Ecorealist Manifesto: “…the long-term purview of nature might be combined with the short-term insights of the genus Homo in ways that allow people, machines, and nature to work together for each other’s mutual benefit” (The Ecorealist Manifesto, P. 1).  In order for the Earth to retain its balance, it is important that we not overstep our bounds as a species.  This requires a universal effort to reevaluate our relationship with nature and make adjustments as needed.

    V.  Conclusion

    After thousands of years of societal evolution, we find ourselves at the peak of technology and pollution.  We are already seeing the effects of our industrial ways through the extinction of species, the melting of glaciers, and the destruction of the landscape.  As we continue to disturb the world’s natural systems we are recognizing a rippling of consequences.  Our recognition of these effects suggests that our role in nature is far more influential than it should be.  Therefore it is necessary that we make major changes and that we make them soon.

    Our role within nature should be one of subsistence rather than commercialization.  We have exploited the world for too long and the consequences of doing so are everywhere.  As everything is related to everything, we have no right to infringe on the livelihood of any other species.  In fact, our cognitive ability and understanding of nature obliges us to maintain the integrity of the environment.  So we must change how we influence the land.  We must respect the natural order of things and find a way to live accordingly.

    Although a change in attitudes would require a complete overhaul of our current economic and political structures, it is something that must be done.  As history shows, if we continue to encourage expansion and development it is very likely that we will see major effects in climate and ecology.  We have seen the destructive nature of industrialism and capitalism.  We can predict and measure the effects of our actions on the environment.  We know we are headed in the wrong direction and we are expecting major consequences.  So why don’t we do something about it?

    VI.  References

    • McLaughlin, Andrew. Regarding Nature: Industrialism and Deep Ecology. Albany: State University of New York, 1993. Print.
    • Leopold, Aldo, Charles Walsh Schwartz, and Aldo Leopold. A Sand County Almanac. With Other Essays on Conservation from Round River. New York: Oxford UP, 1966. Print.
    • Macauley, David. Minding Nature: The Philosophers of Ecology. New York: Guilford, 1996. Print.
    • Easterbrook, Gregg. “The Ecorealist Manifesto.” The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 1995. Web. 13 Apr. 2014.

    Comments

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *