As Johannesburg, South Africa becomes the newest battleground in the debate over sustainable development, Bjorn Lomborg, author of \The Skeptical Environmentalist,"" editorialized in The New York Times that ""the environmentalists are wrong.""
Citing his analysis of climate and environmental data which suggests concerns regarding global warming, pollution and famine are overstated, he pled for development first as a route out of poverty and a spur to future environmental sensitivity.
Some of the most polluted places in the world, places where breathing can be an eventual death sentence, are also the poorest. The international community has always sought to increase aid to these areas in an effort to help them build infrastructure without damaging the environment. However, as long as developed nations are being hamstringed by illogical environmental regulations, they will be unwilling and unable to commit funds to aid development, which not only help the human condition but also the environment in the long-run.
Lomborg cites the costs of adhering to the Kyoto protocol as $150 billion to $350 billion annually, a sum that dwarfs the $50 billion in aid to developing countries. The funds being spent on scattershot environmental policies, without real effects, are better spent on development, giving us real change in the future.
Our past attempts to deal with environmental concerns speak to pipe-dream priorities of having our sustainability and, down the road, development too. In 1992, the world marched out of the Earth Summit with a fistful of pledges that less than five years later were total failures, the costs of which yielded no dividends economically or environmentally.
Environmental issues lack definitive statements. The true severity of issues is most likely somewhere between the doomsayers and Lomborg's. The existence of a problem is undeniable, that it must be dealt with is also undeniable. What is up to debate is when, how and how far.
The simple fact is that we need sustainability and development, though not in the same proportions at the same points in time. By pursuing sustainability first, especially by regulations on developed countries, we start a cycle of binge-and-purge environmentalism in the developed world with the underdeveloped countries falling further into poverty.
After hundreds of years of standard operating procedure, it is ludicrous to believe that we can instantaneously change the world. Likewise, it is ludicrous to expect countries to accept restrictions on growth when the advocates of the restrictions did far worse in their own pursuit of economic viability.
In a perfect world, we could stop the machine and do the repairs needed to prepare our planet for a healthy future. In reality, the wheels keep spinning and the realities of human suffering must be dealt with.
Lomborg justly claims that when people aren't worrying about feeding their children, they can worry about the environment. To get there, sustainability needs to take a backseat to development while economies take root. This means gritting our teeth while we use funds from panacea policy on effecting real change in the developing world.
It is not about writing developing countries a blank check for economic growth, damn the costs. What needs to happen is a moderation of needs at the time. Right now we need to allow developing nations to build infrastructure. The best thing we can do to help them develop cleanly is limiting the costs imposed by environmental regulation on developed countries which are the ones with funds to donate.
Sometimes the only way to help the long run is to accept short-term harm.
