Comment▼ The environment isn’t flat
T
homas Friedman discovered that The World is Flat (Farrar, Straus and Giroux: New York, 2005) while touring information services companies in Bangalore, India. According to Friedman, a “flat world” represents a level playing field in which free trade, open markets, and globalization have created equal economic opportunity for all. This great flattening was made possible by the end of the Cold War and the advent of the Internet, high-speed broadband communications, opensource software, powerful search engines, and wireless technologies. To be sure, a flat world challenges developed countries like the U.S. to be as economically nimble and efficient as China and India while still trying to pay labor forces 5–20 times more. Overall, it is a fascinating and thought-provoking book. But Friedman is such an unrepentant cheerleader for globalization and free markets that he fails to recognize severe constraints on production caused by environmental degradation. In Chapter 2, his irrational exuberance is at its peak: “I think it would be an incredibly positive development for the world. . . . If India and China move in that direction [free market democracies without corruption], the world will not only become flatter than ever but also, I am convinced, more prosperous than ever. Three United States are better than one, and five would be better than three.” Can the environment really assimilate the current consumption patterns of even one U.S., let alone three? Can we raise the living standard for 3 billion more people in developing countries from poverty to the middle class, from an annual income of $3000 to $20,000 per capita, from an annual energy consumption of 30 to 150 gigajoules per person, from an emissions level of 0.5 to 6.0 metric tons of CO2 per person per year? Can our atmosphere assimilate an additional 10 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases every year when we have the equivalent of 5 more countries with U.S. emission rates? Of course, the answer is NO. We cannot do it because environmental constraints are too severe. Certainly, developing countries should attain a better standard of living for their people. They deserve nothing less. And in a flat world, it will be easier to affect development in a speedy manner. But it cannot occur as it has in the U.S.; it must be more sustainable than that. Friedman never once mentions the entire notion of sustainable development in his book. Unfortunately, business-as-usual
development scenarios such as Friedman’s are no longer part of the feasible set. Sustainable, energy-efficient technologies will prove to be more essential than wireless broadband to the flat world and will create jobs and generate wealth for countries and companies who invest in them. I am writing this editorial as Hurricane Katrina strikes the coast near New Orleans, La., with level-5 winds, the 11th storm in a still-young season. Katrina follows on the heels of the worst flooding in history in parts of Central Europe. Are these events linked to global warming? Nobody knows for sure. Regional climate predictions are not possible with existing general circulation models, and, in any case, only a statistical likelihood could be projected. However, global sea surface temperatures have already warmed about 1 °F, and the 31 °C (88 °F) Caribbean seas that fueled Katrina were much warmer than normal. How many Katrinas will it take before prudence dictates a serious response to runaway emissions by the flat-worlders, the G8 countries, the World Trade Organization (WTO), and President George W. Bush? The environment isn’t flat. Opportunities to improve it are not flat. Responsibilities to protect it are not flat. Yet, somehow we must agree on a way to share the global commons equally without destroying it. The environment isn’t flat because companies are still obligated to follow provincial laws where the lowest common denominator offers a comparative trade advantage. The environment isn’t flat because it’s an afterthought in treaty negotiations under the rules of the nontransparent, nondemocratic WTO. The environment isn’t flat because it’s still treated as an externality when actually it is a commodity/ resource that affords the means of production. The environment isn’t flat because the companies and countries that have polluted (and benefited) the most are doing so little. If we are to create jobs, wealth, and infrastructure for 3 billion more people over the next 30 years—a feat much greater than rebuilding Europe and Japan after World War II—it will require not simply a flat business world, but flatter emissions around the whole Earth.
© 2005 American Chemical Society
OCTOBER 1, 2005 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ■ 393A
Jerald L. Schnoor Editor
[email protected]
