The Resource Curse: Making the poor even poorer

          The resource curse that has plagued developing countries throughout history is a constant threat whenever valuable resources are found. Many authors, such as Michael Ross, argue that the curse itself stems as a result of irresponsible governments and poor financial decisions. While these are true, they point to a bigger issue that seems to be at the heart of the resource curse. These countries that experience financial and political collapse as a result of discovering valuable resources always classified as “developing.” Rarely is there a scenario in which an independent, developed nation discovers a substance of value and the results are devastating. Usually, the opposite happens, and the economy flourishes.  

            The issue, therefore, is that valuable substances are a curse that make poor nations even poorer. Like Africa has seen time after time, with rubber, oil, gold, and diamonds, an unstable or nonexistent government cannot be an effective actor. The combination of valuable resources and unstable governments is something that begs for a solution, but unfortunately, a solution is not likely to arrive. The natural resources that are found in a nation are the sole property of that nation. Therefore, we cannot simply take away the natural resources of these nations to avoid economic trouble. As for telling other governments how to function and use the natural resources, that can only work as far as they are willing to take the advice of others. More often than not, the leaders of a developing nation will exploit all the resources for their own benefit until the resource runs dry, the economy collapses, or both. It is impossible for an international agency or entity to plan for the discovery of a valuable resource, therefore we cannot simply expect an issue and deal with it accordingly.

            The best approach to resolving, or at least remedying this issue is through a series of long term actions that would hopefully allow these developing nations to make intelligent decisions that will benefit that common people which, in turn, will benefit the governments. First, there should be international advisors to nations struggling with resource management. If a nation is on the verge of collapse, or even on the verge on discovering and exploiting a resource, someone should be there to act as a sort of financial advisor. Educating these developing nations is the first step towards a solution.

         The next remedy solution, which is essentially an ultimate solution for any nation, is to promote democracy in the region, hopefully sparking the movement towards more democratic nations. Mitchell’s Carbon Democracy hits the nail on the head with describing the only legitimate solution to ending the tragedy that befalls on poor nations that stumble upon sudden wealth. With such a divide between developed and developing nations, there are really only two options for what can occur as a result of such a discovery: economic success or civil war. It is ultimately a choice that must be made by the developing nations themselves. They can either ignore the signs from the past and take advantage of an opportunity, or they can exploit their land and devastate their country.

            

GMO’s, Monsanto and why it sucks to be a farmer

By: Noah Johnson

            Genetically modified food crops were developed to increase yield and possibly enhance food security throughout the world. Proponents of the “Green Revolution” claim agricultural technological advancements, since the mid- 20^th century, have saved over a billion people from starvation. GM crops have become climate resistant, pest resistant, drought resistant, etc. Even the notions of GM foods having adverse health effects are becoming disproved by research. Yet, GM crops are by no means a perfect or possibly even good product for consumers. GMO patents have had nasty consequences both domestically and abroad. In the US, multinational biotechnology companies like Monsanto are dominating farmers through litigation. Abroad, these same corporations prey on the cheap labor in developing countries and leave poverty in their wake. Patenting something as essentially to human life as food is wrong and must be changed in order for true food security to be established.

The Supreme Court case of Bowman v. Monsanto Co. (2013) unanimously found that second generation crops, with patented genetic traits, fall under patents laws of first generation seeds. Meaning that farmers must continue to pay Monsanto’s licensing fees for as long as there crops continue to reproduce. This puts adds extra cost to farming, which is already a largely unprofitable business in the US. Monsanto’s patents and legal actions are deincentivizing the use of GM crops, which will inevitably reduce yield and increase costs for consumers. If crop patents did not exist, farmers could cut costs by reusing their own seed free of charge and therefore reduce food prices in the supermarket.

The power of Biotechnology corporations extends even farther in developing countries, where agriculture is a larger part of the economy and food is less secure than in the global North. In places like India, Monsanto has been blamed for selling ineffectual GM seeds that have caused a huge increase in farming debt. Critics blame Monsanto for pushing their patented seeds  as “cash crops” and then raising prices when farms become monocultures. Farmers who cannot afford to change the type of crops they grow become extremely vulnerable to the boom/ bust nature of monoculture. When droughts in India limited the yields of crops like cotton, farmers became indebted to Monsanto without means to repay them. This relationship cause a huge uptick in farmer suicides in India.

Change to patent law, in terms of crop seeds, seems unlikely due to the political influence companies like Monsanto have in Washington and other governments around the world. Bio-technology companies have been very effective at lobbying as well as supporting state and national political campaign through the country. Monsanto’s is known to fund likely winners of political campaigns in order for their financial influence to go as far as possible. This is reflected in Monsanto’s nearly 50/50 split in the percentage of Democrats and Republicans candidates Monsanto contribute to. Monsanto’s has been able to influence other governments as well, and has been most effective in developing regions like South America and Africa. Some countries, such as Brazil, have been able to avoid the influence of large Bio-Technology companies through legislation, but the end result is has been complete bans of all GM crops.

By banning GM crops outright, countries like Brazil and France miss out on the technological advantages of GMO’s. Complete deregulation of GM crops has its own draw backs as the competitiveness of capitalism does not maximize the benefits (for the world) GM crops can produce. Governments should continue testing the safety of GMO’s while also eliminating patents for GM crops so that our food can be profitable and cheap. Some that the precedent of eliminating GMO patents would endanger the pharmaceutical field which relies on patents in order to produce and sell antibiotics. “If GM crops cannot be patented, how could bacteria be patented”. This is where politicians need nuance. It is possible to keep patents for GM bacteria around while also eliminating GM crop patents. This type of nuance already exists  in the area of gun control. I can own a hunting rifle, but not not a machine gun or RPG's. Such differentiation can be made for GMO’s, and the sooner this change happens, the sooner we can start ensuring food security throughout the world.

Origins of Environmentalism

      As most college students do, I was strolling through my social media accounts, updating myself on the lives of others around me and the general world. Facebook tends to be one of the first websites I go to when I start my routine. A couple days ago, one of my Facebook friends shared a video that I found really interesting. The video was recorded in Barbados at Burke’s Beach. What makes the video intriguing is that hundreds of dolphin had swam up to the shore, not realizing that they were pretty much on the land. Several of them got stuck on the shoreline and couldn’t get back in the water. The reaction of those at the beach was startling to me. Everyone immediately jumped in to rescue the dolphins. Those who didn’t physically get in contact with the animal yelled out ways to get the dolphins back in the water. It was amazing to see the team effort that was put into saving the animals. The link to the video is as followed: https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10151838587417813&fref=nf  . Please take a minute or two to watch the video. It will give you a better understanding of the story that I am trying to tell. Saving the dolphins was clearly an act that stemmed from environmentalism. After watching the video, I immediately related it to some of the ideas brought up in class. This post will explore the origins of environmentalism, evaluating whether it branched solely from colonialism or whether it was came out of religious ideas and morals.

     Author of Ecological Imperialism, Alfred Crosby, shares with us an idea behind why the western world’s culture is more European driven than anything else. He explains that the earth’s latitude is at the core of colonialism. According to him, Europeans migrated to areas that were attractive to them because they were able to survive there. As a result, during the early 1800s there was a large movement of Europeans to the West. When they migrated here, they brought with them their culture, practices and way of life. They would sow the same crops, speak their native language, and practice the religion that they have practiced for centuries. With all the transfer of knowledge that occurred during this time, there is no doubt in my mind the ideas of environmentalism was spread throughout the world through colonialism. Author of Green Imperialism, Richard Grove makes it clear that environmentalism is not a new concept. In fact, there were forest conservation policies in British colonial States. Conservation is the act of preventing deterioration. Over time there has been a growing understanding of the relationship between man and the earth, particularly the idea of conservation. Colonialism promoted the rapid growth of scientific ideas. With this growth came an understanding of how the world works. This eventually led to environmentalism because people are now able to connect the state of their environment with their actions. With all of this being said, colonialism could be viewed as the start of environmentalism, especially in the New World.

     Though colonialism seems like the start of the environmental movement, other factors may have played a major part. Religion, which is defined as a particular system of faith and worship, may also be the catalyst of environmentalism. In the 1400s, Christopher Columbus made several voyages to the New World. Here he came into contact with the Native Americans. The Europeans labeled these people as uncivilized. They did not acknowledge their way of life as one that was sophisticated enough, and therefore inferior to theirs. This included their language as well as their faith. As a result, the Europeans took it upon themselves to bring some type of “civilization” to these people. They educated the Natives on European languages, introduced them to European trinkets and exchanged religion with them for gold. Religion is a very important aspect in molding the ethics and moral of people, though one can be ethical without religion. At the time, Europeans were mainly Christian. In the Christian faith, the belief is that god made the world and that we should have a sense of care for what he has provided us. Care for the environment is the main argument of environmentalism. When the Europeans brought their religion to the West, they may have brought with them the ideas of environmentalism, which has evolved into a widely known movement today.

     It is hard to distinguish between whether colonialism or religion, two things that helped shape the world that we live in today, started the environmental movement. However, I know that they both played a role somehow. Religion to me is the obvious start of the ideas that created environmentalism. It was here before scientific discoveries were here, which was way before colonialism. It created the idea of conserving what god has given to us and using our resources wisely. It helped to create a sense of what is right and what is wrong. When the Europeans moved to the New World they brought their religion with them, hence, bringing the ideas of conservationism with them. This ideas were then shared with the people that were already present here. As a result, colonialism had an effect on the spread of the environmental movement. Today, these ideas have been ingrained so deeply into society that the people at Burke’s Beach, Barbados, found it necessary to help pull the dolphins back into the ocean. This was only the “right” thing to do.

Industrialized Nations: Adjusting their views and goals for development and emissions reduction.

 Recently we discussed the Copenhagen Agreement, a document drafted during the 15^th session of the Conference of Parties at the United Nations Framework convention on climate change. It was created by the United States in partnership with newly industrialized nations China, India, and Brazil. The conference discussed issues such as the number of international agreements to be negotiated, the future of the Kyoto Protocol, and how to create targets for maximum global temperature increase, carbon emissions, and aggregate emissions reductions. The debate over emissions reductions created a partition between participants on whether developing countries actions should be subject to international measuring, reporting, and verification. The west offered to finance developing nations proposed actions for emission reduction by placing $25 billion on to the table at the conference. However, China, India, and Brazil, the three main draggers against an emission reduction treaty, neglected to follow on their reported reduction pledges and reciprocate. Instead, this bloc continued to lean on their freedom to develop despite possible environmental impacts. In the video we watched in class, the Chinese representative mentions how past action by industrialized nations caused the majority of climate change. China believed that they as well as other newly industrialized nations should not have their progress impeded due to other nations past actions.

     The actions of the newly industrialized countries, China, India, and Brazil impeded the conference from drawing up an effective treaty to follow up the Kyoto Protocol and reduce emissions. I believe that newly industrialized countries need to modernize from the standpoint that traditional polluters are responsible for the climate change issues. Also, the newly industrialized need to adjust their own policies to balance their development and their impact on cumulative emissions in order to better cooperate with the global communities goals on climate change.

     I believe that newly industrialize countries need to modernize from the standpoint that traditional polluters should be responsible for their past actions, and this standpoint should be removed from the discussion of multilateral treaties on climate change. As China, India, and Brazil continue to develop, their emissions continue to rise. Past contributors such as the industrialized nations in the EU as well as the US and Japan have implemented programs to reduce emissions. These programs include investing in renewable energy research, electric automobiles, and increasing the amount of green energy used by the citizens of these nations. With these programs, established nations have begun cutting down on their current impacts and amending their historical impacts on climate change. When looking at a graph of GDR responsibility, China creates about 24% of the total emissions, but is not held responsible for 18% of the total emissions. China has its sovereign right to run its economy as it would like, but I believe that it needs to step away from the traditional emissions argument. China needs to accept responsibility and alter its policies to behave like an industrialized nation, which means to curb its emissions.

     Emissions and development are a linked issue that affects many of the developing nations on the globe. China as well as India and Brazil have neglected to cooperate in past meetings, i.e. the conference in Copenhagen. Such lack of cooperation cannot be tolerated, as economic competition for development cannot take precedence over the destruction of the environment. The environment provides all of the resources that nations use to develop their economies and standard of living. As countries have developed so has globe’s environment and thus so have the roles industrialized and developing nations must play in the global economy. Newly industrialized countries, specifically, China and India create a new niche in the global economy and the climate change discussion. This niche must allow nations to properly balance responsibility for emissions and their ability to develop. A balance is necessary in order to meet the goals of the nations themselves and the greater global community especially regarding of climate change. We cannot have political ploys being played such as the opening and closing of negotiations in Copenhagen that lead to the US, India, China, and Brazil agreeing to delete of the “legally binding” negotiation outcome. Previously mooted 2020 goals for a future treaty transformed proposed emissions reductions from 80% in industrialized countries to a 50% reduction of cumulative global emissions. Actions such as this deflate any progress in emissions reduction. Having no cooperation from newly industrialized countries such as China, India, and Brazil leads to the weakening of these policies and treaties because nations have no incentive to gather or penalty to fear for adhering to agreements such as the Copenhagen Agreement. The newly industrialized countries specifically China, need to adapt their stance on the relationship between their development and responsibility for emissions reduction. A more responsible stance would foster better cooperation between newly industrialized countries and the rest of the global community during treaty negotiations on climate change.

The WTO is not the enemy

The WTO is not the enemy
          
  The involvement of the WTO in shaping international environment policy has sparked controversy over whether or not economic/ trade based organizations should be able to make such policy. Detractors argue that the WTO both makes and breaks important environmental policy, and so in the interests of trade instead of environmental protection. While the detractors are correct in their evaluation of the WTO’s interests, they do not address how the WTO could avoid impactful environmental decisions. Trade and the environment are intrinsically connected; therefore WTO involvement in environmental decision-making is inevitable. Instead of proposing unrealistic alternatives to the WTO, environmental interests should work with the WTO to create environmental policy.

            The WTO’s involvement in environmental policy is really a matter of what is ideal and what is realistic. Ideally, many argue, environmentalists would be in charge of creating environment policy, or at the least have significant input in policy making.  While this plan would improve environmental policy decisions from the perspective of the environmentalist, it leaves out the impact such policies would have on trade. A heavily pro-environmentalism policy agenda on an international scale would inevitably increase the protectionism of natural resources, which would interrupt international trade. Such theoretical international organization would need political authority to enforce the protection of natural resources. In reality, no such organization exists nor would states be likely to give an international organization much enforcement power.  The WTO, on the other hand, has significant political power and it’s control over capital flows throughout the world. The WTO has used its political leverage to force compliance on several important settlement disputes over the environment.  Cases such as the shrimp-turtle and tuna-dolphin (brought before the WTO’s predecessor, the GATT) exemplify the WTO’s real-world influence of environmental policy, even in high powerful countries. The application of the dispute settlement mechanism against powerful countries like the United States shows that the WTO is serious about its impartiality. This should be promising to environmentalists who fear that the WTO acts in the interests of the most powerful countries, who happen to do the most damage to the environment.

            In my opinion, the WTO establishing a Committee on Trade and Environment shows for clear intent form Carmel issues to play some role in trade relations. While cynics might view this committee as a simple public relations move, I see the committee as a risk that the WTO would not have taken had it not been genuinely concerned about the environmental impact of trade.  By creating this committee, the WTO has created awareness over the relationship between trade and the environment.  From this awareness come the expectations that the Committee on Trade and Environment will take action on environmental issues. Environmental issues were not something the WTO needed to be involved with, yet did anyway. By sticking its neck out for investigating the relationship between the environment and trade, the WTO has open itself up to criticism by both the public and the media.

The optimism for such action must be taken with a grain of salt, however, as the committee has thus far show an unwillingness (or ineptitude) to anything more than talk about environmental issues. In terms of environmental policy, the WTO has been more active at removing state’s environmental protocol than at creating policy that protects the environment. With that being said, I remain optimistic that the Committee on Trade and Environment can one day create positive environmental policy and that the WTO will eventually rule in favor of environmental issues.    

             While detractors may view the WTO’s insistence on protecting natural resources, in order to protect trade long-term, as not real environmentalism, the organization’s honesty implicates a genuine commitment to environmental protection.  If environmental interests could frame policy as protecting a natural resource that is essential to trade, then the WTO could become a powerful tool for passing meaningful environmental policy.

            Probably the most important aspect of keeping the WTO involved in shaping environmental policy would be the unintended consequences of its exclusion from policy making. If states were able to agree to some sort of mandate that would prevent the WTO from making environmental decisions, then the WTO’s trade policies would become increasingly unsustainable. Even if there were an alternate international environmental organization that had the political authority to restrict the WTO’s actions, the WTO’s considerable influence over international capital could be leveraged against any international organization. If you consider the lack of enforcement power international organizations (that do not deal with money i.e. UN) have, its difficult to imagine an international organization truly limiting the WTO over environmental issues. In my opinion, only national security organizations such as NATO could limit the actions of the WTO. And it is unlikely that NATO will get involved in environmental policy anytime soon.

            The WTO has the power to shape international environmental, and whether or not this is ideal is irrelevant. Trade and the environment are intrinsically linked and simply cutting the WTO out of environmental policy is as impossible as it is flawed. Working with trade organizations is the most effective method of creating environmental policy, whether you like it or not.

NGOs and Governments: Working Together

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are a strong force on the front lines of international environmentalism. NGOs are not limited by geographical, political, and economic limitations that are a common hindrance to governments attempting to implement environmental policies. However, NGOs do not carry the power and effectiveness that comes with a major government, and they require the participation and attention of these governments to make legitimate steps towards enacting strong environmental policy.

Greenpeace, one of the most prominent NGOs active today prides itself in the fact that they accomplish environmental goals without going through the motions of the bureaucratic and political process. Organizations like Greenpeace take the matters into their own hands by creating a public uproar and directly addressing the issue by attacking whalers or protesting international summits.  NGOs hope that this spur of public awareness will influence international and domestic government action. Governmental action is often not satisfactory, and NGOs only take more drastic measures.

The reason why government action is often unsatisfactory, but also the reason why NGOs must rely on governments to accomplish anything is because the public and environmental activists are impatient. As Maurice Strong, the secretary general of UNCED, said, “The environment is not going to be saved by environmentalists. Environmentalists do not hold the levers of economic power.” In order to make an effective impact on the environment, NGOs require the influence and power of national governments and regimes. Government action requires time for research, weighing options, and compromising with other nations so as to enact effective policy, rather than rash spur-of-the-moment action that is often seen from NGOs.

The tactics used by NGOs are also brought into question when frustration leads to questionable actions. When Greenpeace uses borderline-violent protests to make a point, governmental agencies question the legitimacy of these groups and the NGOs lose some credibility in the international arena. Tactics used to prevent whaling are even more extreme as some groups, such as the Sea Shepherd, may shoot flares at whaling boats or even intentionally become kidnapped as a means to gain media attention. These actions are seen as threatening by both whaling groups and governmental agencies, and they are simply not as effective as sanctions and legitimate political policy.

One of the main issues that NGOs have is the lack of consistency between different groups. The argument of conservation versus preservation reigns as a point of contention between groups. For some groups, conservation of the world’s oceans or forests is more of a priority than more specific preservation of certain species of animals being affected in those threatened ecosystems. Simple disagreements can be a substantial divide between groups that refuse to compromise or negotiate, simply due to the fact that there is no reason to negotiate. With governments, if there are disagreements, an attempt at a compromise will occur because neither nation will allow another nation to continue a malicious environmental practice.  

            A comparison of governmental action versus NGO action in the case of whaling has yielding varying opinions on which is more effective. In the case of whaling, NGOs have resorted to using tactics like the Sea Shepherd in which they take to the ocean and confront the issue. This has resulted in two things over the years: angry fishermen and media attention. Rather than opting out of whaling, whalers have only become more vigorous with their fishing techniques. In the case of governmental action, proposed ideas would be far more effective, such as trading quotas, an idea published in The Guardian in which whalers would be paid for whales that they do not catch, thus protecting whales from overfishing.

            It is important to note, however, that anyone could front the cost of these whales, including NGOs. No matter what the opinions are regarding governments and NGOs, it is obvious that the best approach is for NGOs to collaborate with government agencies, rather than creating a scenario where they simply butt heads. In the case of whaling, the government sets the quotas and regulations, and the NGOs pay to save the whales, thus creating an agreeable solution on all fronts. 

Governmental Policies Work Best

Almost nothing in life is stagnant. People grow, the earth revolves and time passes. Even while knowing this I find it hard to believe that something so significant to me as a child is no longer in existence. I recently read a book titled Unbowed, by Wangari Maathai, that put into perspective why rivers, key natural resources for many communities across the world, are slowly diminishing, to the point where they are almost nonexistent. Maathai uses the rivers of Kenya to illustrate how there can be problems associated with shared natural resources. This paper seeks to evaluate what happens in the process of diminishing rivers, the tragedy behind it, and what the best possible solutions are in stopping such things from happening. Some of the solutions include privatization, socialization and government restricted usage. Government restricted use, in most cases, is the most effective way to stop a tragedy of the commons situation from occurring, which in this case are the dwindling rivers.

A community without a source of water cannot survive. Wangari Maathai speaks about how the rivers in Kenya, her home country, are becoming a thing of the pass. As a result the people are suffering. After reading her book, I realized that this is also happening in my home country. If this is happening in Kenya and my home country, I am sure it is not unheard of in many other countries across the world. I was born and raised in Kingston, Jamaica and moved to the United States when I was fourteen. When I was young, between ages 5 and 11, I would spend some of my summers in the rural part of the country, where my mother is originally from. In the country, there was a river that the people in the community depended on essentially for life. We would use the water to drink, to cook, to take baths, to wash our clothes, to do everything that somehow required the use of water. Maathai explains that this was the same case in Kenya. In both places, the land around the rivers were quickly changing. Trees were being cut in order to create buildings and satisfy the needs of companies that wanted more capital. Land equals capital. Paired with the constant river usages by the people who live in the communities, they are no longer.

Privatization is one of the ways to limit the amount of people a resource is available to. If companies privatize a natural resource it will no longer be freely open to the public but instead would have to go through the chains of a company in order to be distributed or made available. With privatization there can be an improvement of the quality of the resource, especially because there will be more direct management. Privatization induces regular maintenance that can be spurred from the money flowing in to the owners. In the case of the rivers of Kenya and Jamaica, that satisfy the needs of so many people, privatization could be helpful in making sure that the rivers stay alive. However, this method would disadvantage the community of people who are either not used to paying for their water or are used to getting their water for free.

Socialization could also be a useful tool in helping to stop the diminishing of river sources. Just like recycling has become an accepted norm across the university’s campus so can the idea of water conservation in rural communities. According to Maathai, one of the main reasons for why the rivers of Kenya are slowly depleting is because of the constant deforestation. In fact, she led groups like the Green Belt Movement that focused on teaching people of the importance of planting trees, in order to save the rivers, so that their families can benefit. Socialization can be the start of solving environmental issues a country is facing. However, because it relies so much on the way people think it is often harder to accomplish.

Government restricted usage on natural resources is one of the best methods that can be used to help the environment. This would involve policies and laws in order to implement controls on how much of a natural resource can be used, who can use it and for what reason can it be used. In Maathai’s book she explains that large businesses were practicing deforestation close to rivers in order to build their businesses. When the government intervened, imposing restrictions on where companies could place their businesses the land was saved, which helped save the rivers, which helped save the people’s source of life.

After evaluating the different ways by which global issues can be solved, I conclude that governmental intervention is the most guaranteed effective method. Though privatization can save the resource rom being effected by a tragedy of the commons problem and socialization can affect the way people think; hence, their practices with their resources, government intervention is the most reliable method. When something is law and limitations are set in stone, people either have to follow them or suffer the legal consequences.