ETHICS is a relatively unheard of issue in the
field of international environmental politics. This is troubling because the ethical angle explains the dynamics of transnational environmental affairs.
The silence on the subject of justice is
mainly because of the intellectual traditions of international relations, ie, realism and liberalism. A central tenet of realism is
that people, and states, are fundamentally
motivated to seek power and security.
From this perspective, moral concerns certainly exist in international life and world environmental politics, but are far from primary.
Much of international liberalism concerns itself with the
ways in which trade, international cooperation, transboundary cultural exchange and the presence of democratic governments can create conditions in which people can more fully exercise their freedom. Ironically, human freedom for
liberals is often understood as a matter of subduing nature.
To the degree that environmental ethics is seen as a matter of
how humans treat nati;;e, then, liberalism has difficulty
developing a moral sensitivity to environmental issues.
The ethical question arises in international environmental affairs when one realizes that environmentalism is not
simply about nature, but involves human beings at every step
of the way. In almost all instances of environmental degradation, some human beings serve as victims while others are
perpetrators. It is a matter of privilege and power.
Sweeping the debris under a flying carpet
In his book Rational Ecology, John Dryzek argues that we
tend to address environmental problems by displacing them
instead of resolving them. Displacement refers to transferring of the hazardous effects of environmental degradation
across space, time, or media.
When communities generate an overabundance of solid
waste and export it to other communities, they are displacing
it across space. When people fail to address environmental
dangers and leave them for future generations, they are displacing them across time. Finally, when people convert hazardous materials from
one form of pollution to another-for
instance, when they incinerate household
waste and turn it into toxic ash-they are
displacing it across media.
Dryzek suggests that we are running
out of natural resources, the earth's
absorptive capacity and physical space on
the globe, and that once we cross fundamental ecological thresholds, we invite
environmental catastrophe. Unspecified in
this line of thinking is the notion of 'we'.
Eco-catastrophe exists when those who are privileged
enough to write and think about environmental issues are
finally affected. But, the problem of displacement is not a
matter of running out of places to locate the harmful effects
of our activities, Rather, it involves the damage being
wrought today to our fellow human beings. We shift, convert
and transfigure our problems and, in almost every instance,
someone else suffers.
Environmental displacement has two dimensions. On
the one band, there is the 'output' side of human enterprise:
the waste-stream which is generated by production. The sec-
ond law of thermodynamics states that matter and energy
cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed.
Transformation, however, is never completely efficient and
thus generates byproducts.
The other side of the coin involves the 'input' dimension
of human enterprise. Production and consumption utilise
natural resources. And, as the second law also states, once
such resources are used, they convert into les; employable
forms. Environmentalists we this as a problem since unbridled use of natural resources-such as timber, flora, oil, coal and so forth-deplete the earth's stock of renewable natural resources.
All politics is said to be local. Many environmentalists
have taken this to heart through efforts to keep dangerous
activities or materials out of their local communities. The
most expressive form of this is the Not-In-My-Backyard
(Nimby) movement which consists of communities organising to resist the siting of nuclear power plants, landfills,
incinerators and toxic waste dumps in their neighbourhouds
and districts.
On a global scale, NIMBYISM forces environmental harm
'South', as it were. It pushes pollution and the most egregious pollution-causing industries to parts of the globe
inhabited by the underprivileged.
One early instance Of NIMBYism and displacement across
space was the practice in London, in the early part of this
century, of building higher smokestacks to address locaJ air
pollution. Higher smokestacks spewed soot and particulates
outside London into, at first, the countryside and, then, the
English Channel and eventually the Continent. In fact, this
practice is still very much at work today we
where many European nations, including England, release dangerous emissions
beyond their borders leading to increased levels of acid rain throughout
the Continent.
Another example of Southbound
displacement is the international toxic
waste trade which sent millions of tonnes
of poisonous substances across the globe,
often to the developing world or the so-
called South. According to one figure,
between 1986 and 1988, northern waste-
traders shipped more than three million
tonnes of toxic materials to developing countries.
Africa bore the largest brunt of the practice, leading one
observer to state that "if European industrial powers could
have built a pipeline across the Mediterranean Sea towards
Africa for the discharge of their hazardous effluents, they
would have most probably done so." The reason toxic materials moved from the North to the South is not difficult to
issess. Developing countries have fewer controls and often
'ound the financial rewards irresistible, In one case, Guinea
3issau was offered 4 times its gross national product (GNP) to
kccept over 15 million tonnes of toxic waste.
Displacement across space is not limited to international
ictivities. Much of it takes place within the borders of a
ountry. In all cases, it flows from the affluent and privileged
a the poor, underprivileged. A famous study by the United
hutch of Christ in 1987 found that the number one indicator of where toxic waste dumps and commercial hazardous
astc landfalls are located is skin colour. And to the degree
iat skin colour correlates with privilege in the us, it indiites the dynamics of displacement. This has been confirmed
numerous studies which show that a disproportionate
umber of nuclear power plants, incinerators and hazardous
activities are in low income, predominantly minority neighbourhoods.
This has led many to talk about a so-called 'global South'
indicate the pockets of the underprivileged everywhere.
ms, there is a 'South of the South', which bears the brunt of
ost ecological assaults in the developing world, and a
mth of the North,'which experiences the bulk of environental degradation in the developed world.
At work in each of these instances is the choice not to see
e people who live where we dump our environmental
problermi or at least discount the value of their lives com
pared to our own. Susanna Hecht and Alexander Cockbuni
make this point forcefully in their study of Brazilian ramforest politics. They demonstrate that time and time again.
developers, rangers and even many environmentalists from
the North refused to notice thatactual peoplelive in the rain.
forests and that the fate of the forests should, perhaps, rest in
those peoples'hands.
This was illustrated by a chief economist from the World
Bank when he wrote in an internal memorandum leaked to
the public, "Just between you and me, shouldn't the World
Bank be encouraging more migration of the dirty industries
to the Locs (Less Developed Countries)?"
Throughout Mexico it is often remarked that the best meats,
vegetables and so forth are shipped to Mexico City (and, presumably, off to New York or London) and the worst ones get
sent back to the towns and villages from which they originally came. Mexico City acts like a giant magnet drawing all
resources to it and redistributing them according to the
financial power of her customers.
The same situation exists throughout the world. The
North of the South on all continents pulls resources to it and
the cream of this crop is further shipped North, to the developed world. This, in a nutshell, describes the input-side of
environmental displacement. Natural resources move across
the globe from the poor to the rich without adequate compensation. The result is that environmental damage falls disproportionately on the poor.
In their book, Beyond Interdependence, MacNeil,
Winsemius and Yakushini demonstrate that countries far
from being ecologically self-sufficient, have "shadow ecologies" which are often unseen.
Japan, according to some accounts, is
at the forefront of reducing and recycling
its wastes, generating somewhat clean
industries and developing means of conservation which makes life within Japan
quite comfortable from an environmental point of view.
A look at Japan's shadow ecology
reveals, however, that while Japan has
done much to protect its domestic environment, it has pulled resources from
abroad in a matter which shows total disregard for environmental well-being
beyond its borders. For example, according t 'o Harms Maul, Japan is the largest importer of tropical broadleaf logs in the world (49.6 per cent of world imports in 1988). It pulls tropical timber predominantly from Sabah
and Sarawak in the Malaysian part of the island of Borneo
and Papua New Guinea.
While this could be said to be simply a matter of economics-that is, a matter of su@ply and demand-it is also
clear that the way Japan harvests tropical timber directly
contributes to the destruction of the world's rainforests. It
supports rapid slashing of rainforests in an attempt to maximise short-term gain. It makes no attempt to develop and
transfer technologies or support practices which would lead
to sustainable timber harvests.
This is all the more disconcerting in that Japan goes to
great lengths to preserve its domestic forests which represent
a national treasure.
Almost all countries that can afford to preserve their own
environments by importing natural resources from aboard
do so. What is striking is that in all such instances, little consideration is given to the environmental well-being of the
people from which resources are taken. From a theoretical
perspective, there is an implicit suggestion that the people
from whom resources are drawn are less deserving of environmental well-being. Such practices are just another instance of powerful countries raiding the wealth (biological, in this case) of less powerful countries.
When we refuse to address environmental challenges and
leave them for future generations, we shift the pain of experiencing dirty air, unclean water-and increased global temperatures from ourselves to others.
The problem is that, like displacement across space, we
create the fiction that no one really lives in the future. That
is, the future is not inhabited by real-life people but rather by
wealthy or more technologically advanced individuals who
will have more resources to address environmental issues or,
at worst, by people who we consider will be so different from
the ourselves that it is unlikely that they will
actually 'suffer' from environmental
degradation. Both involve some degree of
'discomming the future'- a type of orientation which privileges the present over future.
Perhaps no substance is as hazardous
over the long-term as radioactive material. The isotopes of some nuclear wastes,
for example, have half-lives of thousands
of years, spanning thousands of generations. Today we benefit from the use of
nuclear materials-in energy production,
medicine and so forth-but have yet to
understand how to dispose of or even
safely store nuclear materials in way
which would render them less harmful.
The victims of our nuclear use are future
generations.
The same could be said of global climate change. There is now widespread
agreement that humans are contributing
to a build-up of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere and many believe that this will lead to global
warming. According to many scientists, unless remedial
action is taken, by the year AD 2100 atmospheric carbon
dioxide levels will more than double, leading to a temperature rise of roughly 3 degrees celsius. Predictions suggest that
such a rise in global temperature will, among other things,
adversely affect world agriculture, inundate coastal populations due to sea level rises and increase climate variability
thus threatening human security and productivity. There is
no authoritative indication that the effects of global warming
can be felt today; global warming is something we leave to our progeny.
Because the hazards associated with nuclear and climate
change issues extend into the future, both also demonstrate
an unwillingness to live within our environmental means. As Native American
human rights leader Chief Seattle's now famous phrase goes, "We have not simply
inherited the Earth from our ancestors, but
have also borrowed it from our grandchildren." Our aversion to resolving the output side of our activities illustrates the debt we leave to our children.Displacement across time also takes
place with regard to the input-side of
human enterprise. Increases in population
and per capita consumption associated
with technological advances now enable
humans to use the earth's stock of renewable and non-renewable resources to provide food, medicine and basic commodities
such as clothing and shelter at ever-increasing rates. The result places significant burdens on future generations.
For millennia, the introduction of new
species (speciation) has outpaced extinction. This has led to an extreme diversity of species which provides a robust genetic
base from which to develop new food crops
and medicines, and which can enable
organisms to adapt to changing circumstances. Over the past few decades, however, anthropogenic habitat destruction has
driven an unprecedented number of species
to extinction. At least 140 species are said to
disappear each day due to tropical rain forest destruction.
When we destroy species we are implicitly providing benefits
for some members of the present generation (in the form of,
for example, land for cattle-grazing) at the expense of others.
Once a species disappears, it cannot be reconstructed or
reintroduced into the ecosystem. Loss of biological diversity
permanently narrows the range of genotypes available for
maintaining a robust genetic base. Future generations will
necessarily have less genetic resources, lower quality gene
pools and thus less access to the benefits of biological diversity. This leaves a significant environmental debt to our progeny.
There are a number of observers who see nothing wrong
with leaving an environmental debt to our children in the
form of pollution or depleted resources. Arguments along
these lines reflect a practice of what economists call, "discounting the future." Some argue, for example, that future
generations will be more technologically advanced than we
are and thus better equipped to address nuclear waste disposal, increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations
and widespread resources depletion. For these technological
optimists there is little reason for alarm because the necessary solutions lie just over the scientific horizon. Human
beings have an extraordinary capability for innovation and
we should not underestimate its promise in the face of environmental challenges.
What is curious about this type of thinking is its tendency to project optimism into the future as a way to avoid difficult decisions in the present. It is like metelling my child that she will be smarter than I am so I am leaving her with my problems to solve.
A second argument associated with discounting the future suggests that future generations will be economically wealthier
than present ones and therefore better able
to devote resources to environmental
issues. This view is based on the marginal
utility of income. Just like an extra dollar
will mean less to a rich person than a poor
one, it makes sense to postpone the costs of
environmental protection because, assuming continued economic growth, one will
invariably be richer in the future.Wilfred
Beckerman uses this reasoning when he
argues for deferring action on climate
change. He claims that costs incurred today
to reduce carbon emissions and thus prevent global warming will be higher than the costs of reacting to the effects of climate
change in the future. Beckerman claims
that, assuming economic growth, it would
be cheaper to build dikes, suffer partial loss
of agricultural output and respond- to hurricanes in the future than to take measures to avoid climate change today.
What is troubling about this orienta
tion is that it ignores ecological thresholds.
Species extinction, for example, can never
be reversed, therefore postponing action to preserve biological diversity is not a matter of shifting the costs to those most
able to pay, so much as shunting environmental responsibility. Once carbon emissions build up to unacceptable levels, it
may be impossible to wash them out of the atmosphere.
Deferring action on global warming, then, is not about
margin utility but undermining future generations. At work
is a selfishness on the part of present generations. This
reflects a deeper sensibility of disregarding the unborn.
While people are subject to structures of power that discourage transnational or transgenerational morality, there is
nevertheless, an element of human choice involved.
Unfortunately, people often choose to exercise it in a moral
direction. Mining the tradition of international liberalism
could, however provide a structure for moral reflection in
the global environmental context.
We are a voice to you; you have been a support to us. Together we build journalism that is independent, credible and fearless. You can further help us by making a donation. This will mean a lot for our ability to bring you news, perspectives and analysis from the ground so that we can make change together.