As Clapp and Dauvergne explain, there are four major environmental world views. Market liberals focus primarily on economic growth and high GDP, which are viewed as essential to human welfare and the maintenance of sustainable development. In this light, globalization is viewed as vehicle to address environmental concerns. On the other end of spectrum, Social Greens view social and environmental problems as inseparable. Social Greens condemn economic globalization for fostering inequality and unequal access to resource. In their view, the only way to save the environment is to return to local community autonomy.
In light of Clapp and Dauvergne’s explanation of the Environmental world views, Thomas Homer-Dixon’s view of the environment aligns more closely with that of Social Greens. He warns the reader of the dangers we face if we continue to view the Earth’s resources as everlasting. He explains that humankind is trapped by the wheels of economic growth and our reliance on energy use. He cautions that if we do not mitigate economic globalization, carbon emissions will sky rocket causing climate change. Homer-Dixon says “the economic damage caused by such climate change would probably, by itself, halt growth”.
The way in which Homer-Dixon frames growth as something we can’t live with or without is quite pessimistic. Implicit in his argument is the idea that we cannot have economic growth and environmental sustainability. He characterizes this relationship between economic growth and environmental sustainability as contradictory. Rather than presenting some sort of solution, he sets up the challenge as “humankind's biggest of the century” and leaves it at that. This nihilistic approach doesn’t seem probable to me, particularly, within an American context. Rather, we need to combine environmental views and sustainable practices with our economic/growth framework.
No comments:
Post a Comment