Your Questions About Green Living

The Expert answers:

On a macro level, poorer economies tend to have lower environmental standards, hence, very often, some production processes that are now outlawed in developed economies end up being done in poorer countries; for example India and Bangladesh have industries where ships with poisonous chemicals are basically broken down manually, to the detriment of environment and worker health in these countries. Http://toxicslink.org/ovrvw-sub.php?prognum=3&intnum=7&subnum=10&area=3

The sad truth is that the environment and poor people are often the last things that people think of when business is concerned; the workers in these shipyards for example would rather work there at the risk of their own health to provide for heir families rather than be jobless and be even worse off (at least in the short run). Only when most people’s basic needs are met, will people start thinking of the environment.

If you look at the history of EUrope even; during the industrial revolution, when masses were poor, even if everyone saw the smog and pollution, people still worked in bad and unhealthy conditions, sacrificing environment and health for some wealth. Only as the countries grew wealthier did he environment become a topic for discussion.

Hence I would say that poverty leads to more exploitation of the environment.

If you look at a more micro level, you can compare daily activities of families; in poor countries, sometimes firewood is used for cooking. This does lead to carbon emissions. On the other hand, in rich countries people drive gas guzzlers to go to work. Which do you think causes more environmental damage, a humvee driven for two hours, or a small stove lit for two hours? In which case is there a more realistic choice – firewood or raw food, or humvee or hybrid car?

Again, people in richer countries have the means to make envirometally sounder choices, and I think they should, remembering that afterall the riches of today’s developed nations were built on environmental damage caused many many years ago.

The Expert answers:

I think the global warming skeptics consider “alarmists” to be something like chicken little, making much out of insufficient data.

The Expert answers:

The reasons to support the economy over the environment are just short sighted. Our natural resources should be at the core our future wealth. National forest, minerals, oil, and our fish and wildlife are the things we protect for pour future. The crops that feed the nation are more important than industry. If the economy collapses we will emerge stronger than the whole world…We pressured Russia to a restructuring and they have not done well but now they are roaring back. Just a few ideas to look at.

The Expert answers:

This might not help but – http://www.columbia.edu/cu/mpaenvironment/

aussie

The Expert answers:

Restriction of 4wheelers and motorcycles