Chris Milla Anteneh Tesfaye ENVS 2 Human Nature, Technology, and the Environment The Politics of Saving the Environment

The purpose of this presentation is to create a foundation of understanding of both domestic and international political institutions and their relationship with the environment. First, we examined the relationship between economic growth and the environment. We asked questions such as: Is economic growth good for the environment or bad? Next, we looked at the relationship between democracies and the environment. We asked questions such as: do democracies benefit the environment? Are there better alternatives? Finally, we looked at international organizations such as the WTO and examined in relative detail whether trade liberalization is good for the environment or not.

Economic growth and the Environment Those that argue that economic growth is bad for the environment sight the fact that economic growth leads to inequality which in turn leads to civil conflict. Civil conflict and civil unrest make it difficult for governments to focus their energy on environmental protection (Midlarsky pg. 341). On the other hand, those that argue that economic growth is good for the environment state that: –Once a country’s basic needs are dealt with (i.e, infrastructure), the government can focus on other such needs as environmental protection. –When industries are wealthier and are flushed with amore funds then they will readily help the environment (Midlarsky pg. 342).

Democracy and the Environment It has long been assumed that democracies tend to treat the environment better than totalitarian regimes. Evidence of this is the total destruction of the environment carried out by Eastern European countries during the cold war. In their rush to catch up with the west, in terms of industrialization, these regimes paid no mind to the environment. Still, does this mean that democracies are good for the environment?

Those who believe democracies are good for the environment argue that (Midlarsky pg ): –Democracies respect human rights –Democracies are more responsive to citizenry (i.e, such as right before elections) –Democracies allow the free-flow of information making it an environment for political learning. –Democracies tend to cooperate with each other (this means they can copy each other’s environmental technology) –Business within Democracies are subject to incentives and sanctions which means that environmental groups have the ability to lobby for legislation that will cost companies money

On the other hand, those that feel that democracies are not good for the environment argue that( Midlarsky pg. 343): –Democracies have to persuade their population to spend money on the environment. This process is often slow and ineffective, totalitarian regimes have the ability to enact immediate change. –In a democracy the focus is on the individual and not on the community or on the environment. –“Under the protection of property rights, both individual persons and, more importantly, corporations, can act willfully, even recklessly without regard to impact on the environment” (343).

Trade Liberalization and the Environment The objectives of trade liberalization and environmental protection seem to be the same. Both want to “optimize the efficient use of the environment making sure that economic growth is environmentally sustainable” (Brack pg. 497). Yet, trade liberalizers and environmental protectors are often in conflict with each other. In order to understand international political institutions it is important to first understand how trade can be good for the environment and how it be detrimental.

Those that feel that trade can potentially be good for the environment argue that: –Trade leads to comparative advantage which helps promote environmental sustainability because countries focus on one good rather than all goods. –Higher national income allows companies the ability to assist in cleaning up the environment. –Natural resources are less likely to be priced below cost (Brack pg. 498) “Prices may still not reflect the true environmental costs of production and consumption but at least they are less likely to be subsidized” (498)

On the other hand, those that do not agree with the above claims say that: –Economic growth resulting from an increase in trade leads to an increase in pollution and the unsustainable consumption of natural resources. –Trade oftentimes undermines environmental standards “Similarly, a country with strict environmental regulations may find its economy undermined by competition from other countries with more lax environmental standards” (Brack pg. 501) –making country want to relax its regulations in order to gain greater market share –The international trading system, according to trade regulations and agreements made in part through the WTO, cater to trade interests rather than environmental ones.

Why International Organizations Might not be as Effective Like all democratic nations, decision making process can be slow. Especially when the international organization contains several dozen nations with different views and interests. –For example, “the difficulty the CTE (Committee on Trade and Environment) has had in coming to decision can be attributed in part to the decision-making process of the WTO and its organs. The WTO, despite having 128 members in 1997, continues the decision making by consensus followed under GATT 1947” (The American Journal of International Law Vol. 91:268) However, environmental issues don’t allow such luxurious decision- making process –“Environmental threats are unambiguously overt, things may be too far gone to retrieve the situation. When you don’t see it, you can still act to prevent it but it is denied status by ‘realist’ politics, so you can’t; when you do see it and it is granted status and you could act, you probably can’t because natural processes have passed a point of no return” (Politics and the Environment, 729).