Unsustainable - It’s the third world, not the West

NRO ^ | Jerry Taylor

[gubamyster]

August 28, 2002, 9:00 a.m.

By Jerry Taylor

As the U.N.'s "World Summit for Sustainable Development" got under way this week in Johannesburg, South Africa's President Thabo Mbeki welcomed the 12,600 attendees with the warning that "unsustainable patterns of production and consumption are creating an environmental disaster that threatens both life in general, and human life in particular." The root of the problem, according to Mbeki, is that the international economic order is "constructed on the basis of a savage principle of survival of the fittest." And thus, the U.N. conference got off on a predictably wrong foot.

First, blaming Western industrialized nations for producing and consuming too much is misguided. If the West didn't produce as much as it does, standards of living in countries like South Africa would be lower than they are today. If the West didn't consume as much as it did, we'd join those countries in their pool of human misery. Nobody in the United States has to apologize for living in nice houses, eating well, investing in education, spending money on health care, or enjoying life. Despite what the U.N. would have us believe, those things did not come at the expense of the third world or the global environment.

Tropical rainforest deforestation, for instance, has little to do with Western consumption. Less than ten percent of the harvested timber is exported. Most of that wood is burned for fuel, and most of the cutting takes place to clear the way for third-world farmers who lack the capital to increase yields in any other way save for putting more land under the till. Third-world poverty — not Western affluence — is the problem.

Pollution, moreover, is likewise primarily a problem in the developing — not the developed — world. As anyone who's traveled can attest, air and water quality in the West is far better than it is in countries like South Africa and continues to improve at jaw-dropping rates. Western nations aren't the ones exporting "brown clouds" to the Third World. It's the Third World that's exporting brown clouds to the rest of us.

President Mbeki ignores the fact that the West doesn't simply consume natural resources. It also creates them. Natural resources are simply that subset of the earth's "stuff" that we can harness profitably for human benefit. As knowledge and technology expands, our ability to harness new and different sorts of inert matter for human use expands along with it. It's the only way to square the fact that — no matter how you measure the availability of fossil fuels, minerals, or foodstuffs — they're becoming relatively more abundant, not scarcer, even in the face of growing consumption.

Second, Mbeki's slur against Western capitalism as a "primitive" and "self-destructive" ethos of "survival of the fittest" is insipid. First, the lesson of the 20th century is that no other economic system is as capable of producing wealth and bettering the lot of mankind than capitalism, a fact that should be clear to president Mbeki of all people.

Third, virtually every serious analyst is now well aware of the link between economic growth and environmental quality. Once per capita income reaches a certain point (somewhere between $2,500 and $9,000, dependent upon the pollutant), ambient concentrations of air and water pollution begin to decline in real terms. Analysts have also found a link between poverty and deforestation, between poverty and land degradation, and between poverty and environmental-health threats.

That latter point deserves more attention. Approximately two million people across the third world die every year because they rely upon dung and kerosene to heat their homes and cook their food, a practice that generates deadly amounts of indoor air pollutants. Another three million people a year die in Africa alone because they rely on lakes and rivers for drinking water that has been contaminated by untreated sewage and other wastes. Yet both electrification and water treatment requires capital investment that the third world can't afford because, well, they're more interested in redistributing wealth to fight "jungle capitalism" and following every trendy environmental fad that crosses their path than in promoting the economic freedoms and private-property rights necessary to facilitate economic growth.

Unfortunately, President Mbeki and most of the rest of the attendees are largely interested in getting a handout from the West. And they believe that guilt-tripping Europeans and Americans for their excessive consumption and economic success is the way to get it. Other attendees see the conference as yet another front in their war against economic liberalism. To the extent that either party succeeds, sustainable development will be hobbled, not helped, by the Johannesburg conference.

— Jerry Taylor is director of natural-resource studies at the Cato Institute.

[Alberta's Child]

The problem with these world "conferences" is that many of the attendees may as well be from different planets, not just different continents.

The United States in America launches space shuttles with such boring regularity that it doesn't even make the news anymore. Hearing this country criticized by some guy from a country where the people still pee in their drinking water is comical.

[BillaryBeGone]

Ummmmmmm - weren't these the same folks who supped on lobster, caviar, and champagne? And they want us to do WHAT?!?!?!?

[Reaganwuzthebest]

Probably the biggest problem in the third world is the population explosion. Why bring people into the world you can't feed or take care of?

[11Bush]

And the winner for greatest post of the day goes to Alberta's Child for this accurate and comical statement.

[RightWhale]

That was my exact thought. Why is population increasing in these blighted regions?

[Alberta's Child]

LOL. Thanks.

I'll send a message to RJayneJ, nominating it for "Quote of the Day."

[cogitator]

Nobody in the United States has to apologize for living in nice houses, eating well, investing in education, spending money on health care, or enjoying life. Despite what the U.N. would have us believe, those things did not come at the expense of the third world or the global environment.

That's a very short-sighted viewpoint. No, our wealth didn't come at the expense of the third world, that's correct. But our wealth DID come from the heavy use of America's natural resources. The United States had/has abundant forests, most of which were removed for farmland on the entire East Coast. The incredibly rich topsoil of the Great Plains allowed the most intensive farming anywhere in the world. Coal, oil, gas extracted from the U.S., starting in Pennsylvania and heading west provided abundant energy for U.S. economic expansion. Extensive mineral resources provided the raw material for iron and steel. Combined with the awesome synergistic power of freedom and unfettered capitalism (which sometimes had to be reined in -- anybody remember the Teapot Dome scandals, or "trust-busting"?), the U.S. became a powerful economic engine. And the free world survived because of it, particularly in World War II.

But unless the North American continent is not part of the global environment, this economic prosperity did come without some expense to the global environment. And things were getting so bad in the 1960s, clean water- and clean air-wise, that most of the nation was behind the acts which finally started to do something about it. The marked improvements in our air and water quality date from 1970. The United States did something about the environmental effects of its economic prowess; the Clean Ai and Clean Water Acts are models for environmental law in countries around the world.

What the writer forgets is that many other Third World nations do not have what the United States had. A great example is India, which was a British colony until the middle of the 20th century! India's economy didn't benefit from its natural resources, Britain did. And the same applies to Africa: about 3/4 of the continent was colonial at least into the first third of the 20th century. So now they need to expand economically using their own natural resources, but not in the same profligate and environmentally damaging manner that the United States did. And the United States can best help not by providing aid, (most of which gets stolen by corruption) but by exporting knowledge (technology), the tenets of capitalism, and the advantages of freedom. We have the capability to do that; we should do it.

Unfortunately, we waste the advantages of our esteemed position when we appear to be insular in protecting our wealth and less-than-connected to the problems of the Third World. I think that's the chief failing of Bush Administration foreign policy in this arena; not demonstrating through dialogue that our system is the one that works best. If the U.S. showed better engagement on building the economies of developing nations, we would be in a much better position to export the advantages of democracy and freedom.

[Egregious Philbin]

Probably the biggest problem in the third world is the population explosion. Why bring people into the world you can't feed or take care of?

They still consume a fraction of the world resources that we do. This guy's account is simplistic, at best. He says capitalism is the cure-all? How come we're not providing for it? Many countries' attempts to enter world markets are annexed by companies from the First World. We capitalize off of oil in war torn Nigeria, diamonds from conflicts in Sierra Leone... It's not that they'd rather just wallow in wars or foolish (and bloody) land redistribution, it's that we have a hold of the only resources they could use to get out of the rut.

[finnman69]

The reason the West, specifically the Unitted States has the best standard of living in the world is its form of government. Although we have our problems, nobody comes close in terms of encouraging development, growth and personal initiative.\
Get rid of the corrupt banana republic governments in the Third World and you will see prosperity. Not for a long time, but it will come.

[bribriagain]

"If the U.S. showed better engagement on building the economies of developing nations, we would be in a much better position to export the advantages of democracy and freedom."

Respectfully disagree. It's not up to the US to shore up nations that have chosen bad politcal systems that are the root cause of their poverty.

[gubamyster]

We capitalize off of oil in war torn Nigeria, diamonds from conflicts in Sierra Leone...

Do Western companies go in and steal the natural resources of other companies? I don't believe so. Western companies sign extensive contracts to develop resources and pay large sums of money for the natural resources. They pay money in exchange for goods. That is the capital market concept.

Now, it is not the fault of the West or the Western companies that this money usually ends up in some dictator's hands and not the hands of the people of the country. The dictator steals the money from his people and then spends the money on himself rather than investing or lending the funds to the citizens to build a capital market system. That is where the system breaks down - n the third-world country (where there is no capitalism), not in the capitalist marketplace.

As a matter of fact in most instances the Western companies build roads, hospitals and extensively contribute to charitable causes in the third-wold countries. It's not that they'd rather just wallow in wars or foolish (and bloody) land redistribution, it's that we hav a hold of the only resources they could use to get out of the rut.

You are correct. The citizens of third-world countries do not want to wallow in wars or foolish land redistribution. It is their despot leaders who would rather steal from the citizens and live in luxury. The U.S. or the West does not have hold of their resources. We pay money to purchase their resources. Do you think Western oil companies just land in some third-world country and start drilling and exporting the oil for free? They pay the government for the right to drill, for every drop they take out of the ground and many other fees. Most of those countries do not have the equipment or technology to get the resources out, and the resource would remain in the ground if it were not for capitalist West.

It is the dictators who have a hold of the country’s resources. They take the money paid by Western companies and never invest in their own people or country.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

This guy's account is simplistic, at best. He says capitalism is the cure-all?

It is a complicated problem, Zimbabwe is an example of where the Western man is being taken out of the picture, but now the country is rapidly descending into starvation and chaos.

It's not just capitalism third world countries need to grasp, but responsible government as well. Once they learn how to manage themselves properly, they can practice restrained forms of protectionism to prevent the stronger nations from exploiting them without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. At the moment, they're just coming off as jealous whiners to me.

[dfwgator]

I am sure Bush is willing to have a dialogue, it is his opponents that do not want to listen. Why should he have gone to J'burg when all he would have heard is, "Gimme, gimme, gimme?"

[Southack]

"Many countries' attempts to enter world markets are annexed by companies from the First World. We capitalize off of oil in war torn Nigeria, diamonds from conflicts in Sierra Leone... It's not that they'd rather just wallow in wars or foolish (and bloody) land redistribution, it's that we have a hold of the only resources they could use to get out of the rut."

Nonsense. Africa could keep all of its resources and it would still be a sh!thole.

Heck, they don't even want their own resources. They want Western products instead. The corrupt African despots all want to drive around in fancy Western SUV's, fly fancy Western aircraft, watch fancy Western TV and movies, as well as use fancy Western computers and software.

Oh gee, then after they notice that they've spent all of "their" money from selling their nautral resources, they start complaining that it's all the West's fault that Africans have polluted their own drinking water, confiscated productive farms in order to give them away to their own political cronies, let their Western-built roads, ports, and infrastructure crumble, and finally notice that their own people are diseased, starving, uneducated, and dying.

So we should give them more money, they beg. Besides, that new Gulfstream V would look great in the Royal hangar, er, I mean all of that money would sure feed a lot of our starving masses...

[Egregious Philbin]

I like your graphic. You seem to be taking the very few despots in Africa for all Africans. Furthermore, many of the despots you describe are not in attendance at the conference.

Multinational companies have been shown to aid and prop up those despots, such as the oil companies in Nigeria I mentioned earlier. Other companies operate in Africa without the threat of environmental regulation that they have in the First World, thereby expanding their profit margin at the expense of the residents of the Third World. Most "Western-built roads, ports, and infrastructure" were not done for their benefit either...

[blackdog]

Mbeki discussing "Savage principles" is a good start. His edict of who is the savage is the weak point in his argument. The continent of Africa has been pissing away the lives of it's people because their Marxist loonies are strong with our foreign aide and the people are weak because they never see it. Before Marx, they were busy selling their own into slavery with their "Savage Principles".

I'm confused about one thing.....When some poor soul is being necklaced with a tire and a pint of petrol for not giving up half his pay to the local war-lord, who exactly is it in the industrialized west that is preying on the weak?

[wretchard]

Two countries in Latin America, namely Argentina and Brazil were comparably as rich, on a per capita (and in the case of Brazil) and an absolute basis as the the United States in natural resources. Russia, which spans over 6 time zones, has a resource base second to none. Yet these countries managed the surprising achievement of both remaining poor and destroying their environments.

None of them practiced what we understand as capitalism under a constitutional and representative government. The rising tide of American pollution which you correctly describe as being curbed from about 40 years ago stems directly from the interplay of market forces -- and representative government. The market penalizes excessive pollution, once these costs are manifested, and strives to reduce them. Legal liabilities are a cost. Cleanup is a cost.

None of these costs are properly priced in command or corruption based economies like China or Brazil. Hence the despoilation will continue in these countries until their systems change. The sustainability of an ecosystem is based on the correct working of the markets -- including intergenerational transactions; but then we have a futures market and financial instruments which could, conceivably provide a trade in these cross-time events.

It is often pointed out by "environmentalists" that the US consumes 25 percent of the world's resources; what they don't say is that it produces over 30% of the world's output, or something like that. When you consider how much of that "average" is already skewed by America, Japan and the Europeans, you get a sense of how destructive Third World manufacture is. Where is the marginal car or ton of steel more cleanly produced? China or Australia? China or the United States? Which country is penalized for polluting? China or Australia? China or the United States. No wonder there's a brown cloud heading our way. May it stop in Johannesburg.

[cogitator]

Two countries in Latin America, namely Argentina and Brazil were comparably as rich, on a per capita (and in the case of Brazil) and an absolute basis as the United States in natural resources.

How about extractable energy resources? In the case of Brazil they're probably a lot harder to find than in the U.S.; I'm not so sure about Argentina. I think that American industrialization was enabled to a great extent by the "easy" availability of oil and coal. There's no doubt that the czars and then the Communists squandered Russia's natural resources.

The rising tide of American pollution which you correctly describe as being curbed from about 40 years ago stems directly from the interplay of market forces -- and representative government. The market penalizes excessive pollution, once these costs are manifested, and strives to reduce them. Legal liabilities are a cost. Cleanup is a cost.

Excellent point! Our representatives did act in accordance with public sentiment on these issues, and that changed the way that many industries could conduct business.

None of these costs are properly priced in command or corruption based economies like China or Brazil. Hence the despoilation will continue in these countries until their systems change.

In the case of China, it's a heavy Communist push for development; Brazil is still beset with a poor agricultural sector and limited developmental prospects.

China is in an interesting position; because of their population they are still "developing" (much lower per capita income than U.S.), but they are already heavy industrialized. The "brown cloud" you mention shows that. I've been to China once, and I think that the U.S. needs to offer cleaner technology on one hand, and disallow imports from polluting industries that are not penalized like U.S. industries on the other, to move China toward cleaner development. (However, this would probably mean that my toddlers would have a lot fewer cheap toys made in China.)

[Southack]

"Other companies operate in Africa without the threat of environmental regulation that they have in the First World, thereby expanding their profit margin at the expense of the residents of the Third World."

That point can only serve to deceive.

Sure, it's somewhat true, but what it misses is that even a domestic African company would not be under First World regulations, either. Thus, whether the company is African or European, it is still going to result in pollution to extract resources in Africa.

Thus, your point is meaningless on its face - and it can only serve to deceive, perhaps by convincing casual bystanders that Africans are at something of a disadvantage to Western firms, which is entirely untrue. In fact, it is only because Western firms do business in Africa that Africans have any sort of infrastructre and economy. They certainly aren't building it on their own.