Tuesday, August 24, 2010

What is the most important world politics issue?

Climate change is the most important issue in world politics today, yet miraculously it does not receive nearly as much consideration as it should. There are some who argue that climate change is an environmental dilemma, a problem that requires the attention of the scientific community, or impassioned tree huggers. There are even some who claim that it is not an issue at all. I believe that it is not simply an environmental quandary or a political talking point, but an issue that requires the attention of citizens throughout the globe: politicians, scientists, and every one in between. 

It is essential for people to understand the ecological repercussions of climate change, because only then will they realize that our changing physical world inevitably stimulates extensive political conflict. In the most obvious case, as humanity's direct actions threaten our natural resources, international conflict will escalate as we exploit trade opportunities or vie for scarce materials. In addition, a likely result of drastically changing climates is an equally dramatic shift in weather patterns. As the world has recently learned, natural disasters such as earthquakes, flooding, and hurricanes have become more threatening. Yet what is natural about the worst earthquake in Haiti in more than 200 years? What is natural about this summer's torrential downpours in China and resultant fatal mudslides? Or a hurricane capable of imprinting a palpable scar on an entire nation?

Nothing is natural about these occurrences because we have had a collective hand in their creation. Of course, our generation is not the only one composing "we." Over the expanse of thousands of years, human beings have contributed to our current predicament. What the present generation must realize is that it has the ability to affect change, unlike those that came before it. More importantly, today's citizens throughout the world can not only choose to respect their environment, but the people inhabiting it, or else risk significant political consequences. It is a discomforting thought that you and I are active sponsors of immense environmental change; it is a terrifying thought that we condone its negative effects on other countries' land, resources, culture, and people. For example, when the 7.0 magnitude earthquake hit Haiti in January, the world exploded as countries, especially the US, clamored over donations and aid. Celebrities and major media networks advertised phone lines and benefit concerts and in-depth coverage, all to provoke an altruistic response that Americans were more than willing to provide. When Pakistan received intense flooding in the northwest beginning in late July, reportedly affecting 14 million people, the international response was sluggish. We did not see Anderson Cooper flying overseas to interview orphaned children or aid in the removal of debris. The UN has asked for $459 million in aid, yet we have not yet seen supportive telethons or beneficial events. Climate change will inevitably affect every inhabitant of this planet by physically altering the environment and therefore former ways of life. However, it should also force nations to consider how they view the different corners of the world, and how our political affiliations, beliefs, rivalries, and wars influence our readiness to help our global neighbors; for when the time comes and we must confront the sizably smaller amount of land and resources available to us all, every country will only be able to afford allies in this entirely international struggle. 





4 comments:

  1. Julie, I really enjoyed your post and I agree with your thoughts behind it. Climate change is a huge issue that the world as a whole needs to tackle, yet politicians spend so much time arguing about the merits of climate change while natural disasters are happening left and right. This is definitely not the way to continue.

    However, I was curious about your thoughts on the world's response to Pakistan. Both Haiti and Pakistan experienced natural disasters that displaced and killed many people, as well as altering the environment drastically. Why do you think the response to Haiti was so much stronger? Is it because the earthquakes were more deadly, and it takes death to get people to care about climate change?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Julie, I wholly agree with the message that you are conveying and I agree that we have to be proactive in order to sustain our scarce resources. I do, however, think that climate change does receive an incredible amount of growing attention especially today through organizations such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the popularity of "going green." That being said, I think it would be naive to expect people other than politicians and scientists to focus their attention on climate change above all else. I think that your ideas towards initiative for protecting the future of this planet are significant because our society gets very caught up in the present. Do you think that it might be a better idea to work towards building better homes and protection from these natural disasters considering countries such as Haiti had such a low standard of housing and building in the beginning? This way we could have more direct control over problematic weather patterns that are both unpredictable and inevitable in some cases.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Kate: Thank you so much for your input! I also have to agree that global leaders spend far too much time deliberating whether or not climate change is actually real, or if it's a bunch of earthy-crunchy nonsense. I believe that their constant debate significantly detracts from efforts to confront the issue; yet, I also wonder if they simply believe it is easier (financially, politically, economically) to argue than it is to act. If that is the case, then the entire globe has an additional worry: our leaders' backbones.

    In my post, I juxtaposed the incidents in Haiti and Pakistan to support my claim that the world's political climate affects our reactions to peoples' suffering. The United States, along with 33 other countries, the UN, the World Bank, and private organizations donated a little over $2 billion to Haiti in response to the earthquake, according to a report by the UK’s Guardian newspaper (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/jan/14/haiti-quake-aid-pledges-country-donations#data). In contrast, “The international response to Pakistan's flood emergency has been sluggish and ungenerous compared with relief efforts after previous disasters, a leading aid agency said today as the UN warned that its emergency workers were in danger of being overwhelmed by the scale of the crisis.” That quote comes from an August 10 article from The Guardian. As I stated before, 14 million people in Pakistan have been affected by the natural disaster, with 1600 dead. When the above article was published, only five countries (Britain, the US, Australia, Italy, and Kuwait) had committed to offering $5 million in aid to Pakistan. This is such a staggering difference that it begs the question, Why? Does Haiti somehow deserve aid more than Pakistan? Perhaps the magnitude of deaths, so close to home, propelled Americans to care as much as they did for Haitians. Then why wouldn’t India, Pakistan’s wealthy neighbor, hurry to provide the same aid and compassion? I have a different theory, one that has nothing to do with physical proximity, but with political proximity. Countries may fear that aiding Pakistan equates to aiding terrorists, extremists, and other enemies of democracy. I think that people are quick to generalize, and can gratefully forget that innocent civilians are suffering as long as they can imagine dying bad guys. Yet Pakistan is not solely composed of terrorist-sympathizers, and Haiti is not only made up of dehydrated orphans and unprotected young women. Our heartstrings may be touched by death tolls, but they may refuse to move depending upon the person who is suffering.

    Aditi: You’re absolutely right that everyone should seek to protect themselves from possible disasters. The problem, however, is finding adequate funding for such measures. Places like Haiti, as you said, had subpar or even nonexistent protective measures in case of natural disasters. They will have to start from scratch as the rebuilding process progresses. The issue is whether Haitians can effectively create such plans without foreign guidance. It is much simpler to donate money than to offer the time and labor needed to help Haiti literally rebuild a sustainable nation. So yes, I think it would be a huge help if Haiti, and every other part of the world, could protect itself from disastrous fates through greener, safer construction practices. I’m just not sure how realistic that hope is.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Aditi: You’re absolutely right that everyone should seek to protect themselves from possible disasters. The problem, however, is finding adequate funding for such measures. Places like Haiti, as you said, had subpar or even nonexistent protective measures in case of natural disasters. They will have to start from scratch as the rebuilding process progresses. The issue is whether Haitians can effectively create such plans without foreign guidance. It is much simpler to donate money than to offer the time and labor needed to help Haiti literally rebuild a sustainable nation. So yes, I think it would be a huge help if Haiti, and every other part of the world, could protect itself from disastrous fates through greener, safer construction practices. I’m just not sure how realistic that hope is.

    ReplyDelete