Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Today, we are going to talk again about environmental issues. In the previous lecture, I made a
difference between sociology of environment and environmental sociology, by saying that
in sociology of environment. Environment is that dependent variable, and sociology or
social structure is the independent variable. So, sociology of environment looks at a relationship
between structural or biographic factors on the one hand as independent or causal variables.
Environmental degradation, climates change, environmental consciousness, ecological believes,
etcetera as dependent variable. In environmental sociology, the relationship it just reverse
of that; in environmental sociology, socially structure, social consciousness, one term
super ego is the dependent variable; and geographical environmental, ecological variables are independent
variables. I also mentioned about two demographers, who
are also sociologists like Kingsley Davis and Nathan Keyfitz, showed the connection
between populations, variables, and develop development and environmental variables. How
it is important now to look at, the relationship between population and environment; why is
it important to talk about environmental issues, sustainable development.
And today, I will talk about Differences in Perception, regarding environmental issues
between Developed and Developing Countries, which has become a major bone of contention
in the recent past. Why do developed and developing countries have different approaches, visions,
the strategies and compulsions to deal with environmental issues; the issue of climate
change that is the subject matter of today’s discussion.
Now, it is obvious, all those who have read anything about Kyoto Protocol, know that there
are serial differences, in perception of sustainable development between developed and developing
countries. Developed countries mostly led by United States, and developing countries
led mostly by India and china, there is US policy, there is another policy advocated
by India and china. Other countries are in between mostly developed
countries, are European countries are mostly with United States. And Latin American, African
countries are mostly supporting, Indian and Chinese position and development and environment.
Why is the difference, now when it comes to perception of developed countries, you find
certain common elements in perception of United States, Europe, Japan, other developed countries,
which are high in income industrialization, urbanization. The first thing is that for
them, environmental problems are the most serious issues facing mankind.
So, if all the issues, this is not the all the issue, they are so many issues of concern,
a population issues, social conflicts, anomy, violence, terrorism, trafficking of women
and children, in equality, migration there are so many issues. But from the perceptive
of developed countries, when it comes to development; then environmental problems are seen, as the
most serious issues facing not only developed countries, but the whole mankind.
Global, there is a global risk of water, air, and noise pollution, this risk is global,
it is not confined to any particular country, it is not confined to US or to Denmark or
New Zealand it is global. Risk of water, air and noise pollution are global risk, we have
witness acid rains, the result of unsustainable development or a access of industrialization,
mechanization, manufacturing. Even in countries, contributing least to environmental damage.
There are countries, which are not so high in industrialization, which have plenty of
forest, which are trying to promote organic farming, and agro based economy. But is still
they are suffering from acid rains, due to environmental pollution caused by neighboring
countries. So, the in that sense the risk of a environmental pollution or climate change
are global, they are no more confined, only to those countries, which are creating environmental
problems. Environmental problems are the most serious of all the problems facing mankind,
and they are of global nature. That means, from their prospective even if
environmental problems are created in a freak, it should be every bodies concern, it should
be concern of US, it should be concern of Latin America, it should be of concern to
India. And these environmental problems, are now affecting growth of industry and agricultural
worldwide; because they are destructive of environment, nature, they have polluted rivers,
they have polluted air. Therefore, even agricultural production worldwide
is affected by the climate change, this is leading to climate change, it studies have
shown that during last 100 years or so. The world temperature has been rising, and there
is a real danger that. If the world temperature rises further by 2 degree, this will be highly
destructive of populations living, in the coastal areas, and may be some small island
countries; they live in summers in the ocean, so the danger is real.
This environmental destruction or climate change is also leading to displacement of
people from one part of the country to another, and from one country to other countries. And
in that sense is the cause of human tragedy, this human tragedy also arises, because due
to population pressure, people have started living in those areas, which were unlivable
for a long period of time. So, when there is a population surplus, person
have a tendency to fall for as, to live in the coastal areas, to live in hilly areas,
and to and along with modernization, desired to the modern amenities and construct houses
of the modern type, everywhere they live. They create buildings, infrastructure, roads,
basically those situations where, it is not sustainable to construct those types of buildings
or roads or infrastructure or establish industry, so that is adding to our problems of living.
The causes are unrestricted growth of population in the developing countries, I am not saying
from my side that behind environmental problem from population factor is the biggest factor.
I am just saying that from the perspective of developed countries, this is the case or
what the developed countries want us to believe in, is that environmental problems are global
serious, causing human tragedies, displacement. And one of the most important causes of this
is unrestricted growth of population, in the developing countries.
Developed countries are not having, we have seen the data, the development countries are
not having significant population growth, and some of them are even having negative
growth. Then raising aspirations, a few months ago there was a big debate on whether, Asians
are eating more, Indians are eating more, because some thought leader in United States
made a comment, that many problems of the world are caused, because Indians have started
eating more. So, from their perspective there is raising
aspirations and rapid industrialization in developing countries. If the developing countries,
are willing to live at the same level of development, at which they have been living for 1000s of
years, then there will be no or there will be very little of environmental destruction.
Now, this rapid population growth, raising aspirations and industrialization, in developing
countries are leading to felling of trees, modernization, and more requirement of energy
and spread of consumerism. Also in the developing countries, environmental laws either they
do not exist or they are very weakly on force; as such most of the developing countries are
corrupt, lack transparency, governance and are. And when it comes to environmental laws
particularly, then nobody bothers, neither government bothers and nor people, corruption,
under hand dealings, lobbies of industrialists, lobbies of business men. I am sure that, in
the developing countries interest of the business houses are maintained, interest of business
houses are protected, irrespective of their consequence for the environment.
So, their weak enforcement of laws, due to corruption, governments are weak and there
is generally a lack of environmental consciousness, people at people also do not have that environmental
consciousness, because of this or with, they can force the state or industries.
We are talking about developing countries over here or developed countries
From the am talking about, the perspective of the developed countries.
What they think about developing What they think
So, but these characteristics are very much found in the developed countries as well.
So, are they over looking their own, what they have?
Actually from our perspective, developed countries want to place blame for environmental or climatic
change, on processes in the developing countries. Though they may be the
Though as we will see later, that they are the major polluters they are the major polluters,
but they would like the world to believe, that the responsibility for
All the degradation is due Preventing further degradation lies with less
developed countries. To some extent, this is also true that these characteristics weak
environment laws, corruption, weak governments, lack of environmental consciousness
Are very They particularly applied to developing country;
this is true, that an average citizen of Germany is much more conscious of environment than
an every citizen of India, that is a fact. And as the report of transparency international
shows, India is one of the most corrupt countries of the world that is also true. Let us not
go exactly by numbers, whether India’s position on corruption scale should be this or that,
but the fact remains that India is one of the most corrupt countries.
Sir, I would like to not argue, but comment over here, corruption caught is corruption,
where they like if they cannot point out the corruption in some countries. So, they will
not count them as corrupt, but since in India it is, so much visible. So, they number it
as one of the most corrupt nations, though it may not be.
So, yeah these are the issues all which we cannot definitely talk in terms of objective
indicators. Yes
But, if you read the methodology developed by transparency international, they have used
quite an objective method for arriving at a scores of corruption, and various dimensions
of corruption, based on quite well standardizes methodologies from both the statistical point
of view, and also from the point of view of reliability of data.
This seems to the a fact It does not sound good to the ears
Its bad to hear for people like us or intellectuals of developing countries, it hurts our sentiment,
but this is a fact; this is a fact that in that some of the developing countries are
also some of the most corrupt countries.
Now, the perception of developing countries, how do developing countries perceive about
this, developing countries want to catch up with the developed countries, for them environmental
issues, population issues or other issues are secondary. The most important issue, the
most important value, the most important goal for developing countries is to catch up with
the developed countries; and there is no ideological or political or party conflict over this.
Whether, in our country like whether BJP or congress anybody comes to power any party,
they would like to fix a higher goal, growth of income per capita for the country, development
first. Because, from our perspective we are we are so poor, and also there is no justification,
why should we not catch up with the western countries, why should we not there is no satisfactory.
Answer to the question, why should we not be as developed, as people in the developed
countries, why should we not have air conditioner, why should we not have the latest technology
in computing, why should we not have atom bombs, and nuclear bombs, why should we not
have malls or why should we not fly by dust of aircraft. So, there is no for developing
countries, the catching up with the western countries, catching up with the developed
countries is of the top most important. They too have right to have a high standard
of living as in the West, all political leaders will say Samajwadi Party, BJP, congress all
leaders will say. The very talk of environmental problems is essentially from their perspective,
and instrument of debarring them, means debarring developing countries from raising their standard
of living, to the levels of developed countries. They say, developing countries say that, these
developed countries are talking of environmental problems, and putting the environmental question
in such a manner, that they want to debar us from the benefits of latest technology,
and latest development. Developing countries like India feel, that for them poverty rather
than over development, is the cause of environmental problems, and in all less developed countries
more or less, this is the situation and this is the position.
I am coating from a 5 year plan draft 1985, Government of India, that with the realization
that poverty and the state of underdevelopment, led to many of the environmental problems,
that confronted the nation came the understanding, that it was more rapid development that was
the best approach. That if you want to counter environmental problems in our country, then
we have to develop fast, with this is just reverse of what, the developed countries are
saying. From the perspective of development from the
perspective of development of the developed countries, there is a need to regarding setting
up goals regarding per capita income. From the perspective of developing countries like
India, poverty is the biggest cause of environmental problems in our country. In order to counter
the environmental problems in our country, rapid development is the answer; further this
development has to benefit people, and particularly the poor by providing for their basic human
needs, and rising aspirations. Thus many of the developmental programs, could indeed be
termed as environmental management programs, this is the difference.
So, for us developmental programs are the environmental management programs, for developed
countries there are a need to draw a line on development processes. From the perspective
of developing countries, more development, further development, rapid development and
poverty removal, would protect.
As far as the reality is concerned, in the period 1900 to 2004 in, 104 years period,
the whole of Africa was responsible for 2.5 percent of cumulative carbon dioxide emissions,
while the US accounted for 20.5 percent. So, what you said is correct, that if you look
at the statistics of carbon emission or other indicators of environmental degradation, then
the biggest polluters are developed countries themselves.
India’s current per capita carbon dioxide emissions are 1.5 tons per annum, against
20 tons in the United Sates that means, if you really have a global perspective, then
the internationals in the field of environment, must be made first in the United States. Where
in per capita terms, they are producing emission of 20 terms, in our country emissions are
only 1.5 tons. Now, other factors remaining same if our income
doubles, and all other factors remain same, if our population doubles or suppose both
population and development doubles. So, pour ambition per capita would be 1.5 into 4 6,
even then it will be less than one third or what is happening in the United States today.
But, United States is say, that for the global interests of the world for environmental interest
of the world for the climate change, developmental activities in less developed countries must
be restrained. Because, they cannot think of going back, it is not possible for United
States to think in terms of reducing their per capita income, there is actually a need
for climate justice. Firstly, the richer countries should repay
their climate debt by undertaking severe cuts in the missions, reserving atmosphere space
for the growing emissions of poorer countries; from justice point of view, if you compare
situation in developed and developing countries, an objective. If you take an objective, disfascinate
view of the situation, and not identify with interest of any one, developed or developing
countries. The justice would demand, that the developed countries should reduce their
economic standards, and the less developed countries should be allowed to pollute, may
be for some more time. So, that once both of them reach some kind
of parity, in development in technologically standards, then you can blame both of them
equally or you can give your lectures on environment with equal effectiveness to both. Secondly,
that financial compensation should assists both, with a cause of low carbon transition,
and of adaptation to the damaging effects of climate change.
That means, if you want developing countries to reduce their damaging effect, then they
they require better technology, and they require certain kinds of intersect oral shifts in
economy, which will require money, but less developed countries do not have money for
that. So, the developed countries must provide financial compensation, and financial help
to developing countries to go far latest technology, which is environment saving.
It has to be understood clearly that sustainable development is however, not the strategy of
development, it is a goal or a vision; to be or practical utility it has to be operationalized
in a specific contacts, and the contacts are different. It sensitizes us to the fact that
the rich and the poor, the present and the futures citizen country side, industry and
agriculture, and man and nature, are inseparable. And they are linked with each other through
complex, socio economic, cultural, biological and political chains. And the concept of sustainable
development is stresses that the long run welfare of a community depends heavily, on
the quality of surrounding environment, and welfare of the other communities, you cannot
live your life in isolation today.
So, for sustainable development everybody is equally responsible that is true, but before
you make everybody equally responsible, you have to bring everybody at the same level.
If everybody is not at par in socioeconomic, technological, and educational its standards,
how can you blame the poor people more, this is what the developed countries are doing.
So, the issue is what are all the strategies possible, if a country wants go for sustainable
development; world bank suggests a threefold strategy for meeting, the challenges of sustainable
development. And they are, build on positive links, which means that growth of income promotes
efficient use of resources, technology, transfer, market and investment, in environmental improvement.
Poverty removal, reduces population growth and provides resources, and knowledge to enable
the poor to take a long run view of development; poor people cannot take a long run view of
development, they cannot afford.
So, you have heard about this Copenhagen climate change conference 2009, people say that it
failed, it was held in December, and the top leaders of different nations, talked about
sorting out the issues, which were mainly responsible for the increase in level of CO2
gas, leading to global warming, and melting of glaciers, ice and snow. There was an agreement
efforts should be made. So, that the global temperature does not raise beyond 2 percent
sorry, 2 degree. Excessive dependence of countries on non renewable
resources of energy, like coal and petroleum, increase in population, industrial revolution,
burning of fossil fuels etcetera, were considered, the chief reasons, which have given birth
to global warming, and it failed.
The reasons, the all the reasons that you find in literature, in media, why the why
this failed are zero-sum game, between developed and developing countries, it has become a
zero-sum game and both of them think that, games of others are losses of theirs. So,
if developed countries are asked to maintain restrain, then developing countries are permitted
to more, they can grow more, they can grow for a higher rate of growth of income.
If the less developed countries are restrained, then their freedom to go for higher rate of
growth of income is, then the developed countries can maintain their present day standards.
So, there is a zero sum game, gain of one loss of another. Second thing, some people
say, this Copenhagen gave exclusive rights to decide about environmental matters, to
national government and national governments obviously, in liberal democracies, with their
own banks in mind will maintain the interest of the nations first.
The issue is global; right in the beginning we saw that, the environmental issues are
global everybody recognizes that, the issues are global. But once you give exclusive rights
to national governments, and they are not able to go beyond the political interest of
the nation, in the zero-sum game perspective they are not able to come up with decisions,
which they can which they are happy with to take and which they can readily enforce.
There was a neglect of business, civil society, cities and the youth, just to name a few,
then old styles never says in techniques, there should have been much more diplomacy,
much more home work, involvement of environmental networks, civil society, media, some better
solution could have come, but this did not happen. The structure of the word order is
not designed to solve environmental problems, that no that no national boundary; environmental
problems have no national boundary, but political interest have national boundaries. And there
are outmoded ways of doing global governance, you know Levi some changes required in the
composition, and structure of united nations or international organizations of that time.
Now, we are hoping that something in November this year, the governments are again meeting
to talk about Copenhagen failure, and develop a new process for climate change soon, in
November 2010. The UN secretariat is working as very very closely with the Mexican government
to form a team with it, which would be talking which would be taking on the political leadership
role, during negotiations at can; this is the situation, difference in perspectives
between developed and developing countries.
Now, let us talk a little bit about population and sustainable development, because this
finally, this course is on population. So, population size and demographic processes
are integrate telling the sustainable development, though population is not the only source of
environmental class, that we will look. There is technology, there is social structure,
there is culture, there are aspirations, and there are political institutions, movements,
social movements, new social movements, all those things affect environmental consciousness,
environmental believes and environmental action. But, population size is one of the important
factors, high rate of growth of population not only raises the demand for natural resources,
it also affects most of those proximate variables, which hamper the sustainability of development,
for example, organization of production, innovations, technological developments, politics, values
and market forces. Population processes also affect, the other indicators of sustainability,
such as equality justice absence of object poverty, and greater participation of people
in development.
In the less developed countries, where population growth rates are high and particularly in
those countries where density of population is also high. The possibility of rising carrying
capacities of the scarce land sources is low, and the alternative employment opportunities
are limited. People would be forced to exploit natural resources, without regard for future,
in the tribal areas we can see this very clearly. Here, people are forced to expand agricultural
lands, in to unsuited areas and large the size of their hearts of live is stopped, and
out migrates to other areas quite often causing the problem of what we commonly call, the
problem of commons. Ironically the less developed countries also have low carrying capacity,
that is the social developmental and institutional variables that end up in the ability of institutions
to cope with environmental stresses.
There are multiple effects of population growth however, population growth leads to fragmentation
of land, causes low productivity, unemployment and reduce supply of order. People may respond
to low farm productivity by increasing the number of livestock, then the agricultural
expansion, and growth of livestock destroy the forest and pastures.
They also cause soil erosion and thus ecological imbalance. As a better fact population growth,
poor economic condition, deforestation, soil desiccation and ecological imbalance tend
to reinforce each other through dynamic multi-cyclic structures.
According to Demeny, Poul Demeny, a significant change in the demographic parameters is found
to cause shifts in relationships between population, income and resource-used intensity, sometimes
compensating and sometimes reinforcing the environmental impact.
To quote in particular over time non-linearities to scale may appear. Quantitative increases
can generate qualitative changes; thresholds separating, for example, tolerable levels
of pollution from levels that generate unacceptable risk, for human health may be crossed. Up
to a certain level dements to a removable resource, such as a forest eco system may
be corrected by a spontaneous and relatively rapid biological process. Beyond that level,
the damage may be irreparable or the natural recovery of the human engineer, repair of
the eco eco system in question may require a very long time or until exorbitant cause.
So, there are complex and diverse issues, in simple language the relationship between
population and environment is not amenable to one simple formulation. Population dynamics
may offset or catalyze the effect of population size on environment; it depends on number
of socioeconomic, political, cultural, technological and environmental factors. It also depends
on whether; we are focusing at micro level or macro level.
So, the environmental impact of population growth has to be seen separately at individual
level, household level, village level, community level, state level or regional level and the
national and international level, the effects are not same. Imagine that due to increase
in family size, just to give an example of how a people take different types of actions,
in different situation, imagine that due to increase in family size, in moderate fertility
context, moderate fertility contexts, family size increases due to reduction in mortality.
There is a division of land and in per capita term the family becomes poorer. What does
the family do, the family may respond by increasing fertility, increasing fertility the cause
are becoming poor. But the family may respond by increasing fertility, with the aim of diversification
of economic activities, and benefiting from division of labour, and offset the negative
effect of population growth on development, and leading further to environmental problems
or to poverty or degradation or division of land.
The family may increase fertility, without having the possibility of rising income, and
the negative impact of population may be reinforced, in the same way there are different possibilities
for societies and nations, in absence of capital they may decide. So, no wonder, you can certainly
find some countries, where population growth rate is high, the process of economic development,
industrialization, rising aspirations, modernization are highly destructive of environmental quality.
And is still, those countries are maintaining the policy of increasing population growth
or not bothering about population growth or not having policies to reduce their growth
rate of population of fertility. In absence of capital they may decide, families communities,
as well as nations may decide to substitute capital by labour; and thus ignore or encourage
high fertility. They may benefit from the strategy in the
short run, and for them those who have those who have been poor and deprived of modern
day facilities, the short run is more important than long run. They may simply increase fertility,
due to religious, cultural, political or economic regions, than they suffer more. Ironically
some of the poorest countries of the world have high fertility levels, though it would
be rational, if they control it. The other side of the equation, one side is the impact
of population growth on sustainable development.
The other side of the equation is impact of sustainable development on population growth,
in introductory course on population, this is a also an important link; towards which
it is important to draw students attention. That sustainable development strategies to
affect population growth, what will be the advantages if we go for sustainable development,
first health benefit, they if we go for sustainable development, the first benefit would be, in
terms of health benefit. Then it will make development more participative,
you will use more participatory approach, sustainable development has to use a participatory
approach and so, development processes become participatory. Sustainable development is
to justice and empowerment, social justice, women’s empowerment, empowerment of the.
By definitions sustainable development is that, which brings the, the marginal, the
alienated to the main stream, it also develops a rational scientific view, and empowerment
of women and disadvantage sections of society. Improvement in governance, you cannot have
sustainable development, if there is no corresponding improvement in governance, and strengthening
of legal frame work. On the on hand, it is important to focus on
population growth processes, so that they can be altered to have sustainable development;
and on the other hand, if you have sustainable development that will also be beneficial to
implementation of population policy, this is what it means to say that we must look
at this link from both the sides.
However, there are some unresolved questions, in literature on population role of demographic
factors in development has been greatly explode. But the role of sustainable development in
population management is less understood, may be students like you, when you take up
your M.Phil and Ph.D research may take up some of these connections.
In 1987, the world commission on environment and development the Brundtland commission
has that, all should keep in mind, that sustainable economic growth and equitable access to resources
are two of the most certain routes, towards lower fertility rates, how think, how this
is the case. The state of world population in 1993, has clearly demonstrated, that more
often than not, international migration has been caused by environmental disruption.
Sustainable development and environment planning therefore, need control of migration; the
link between environment and migration is not fully, migration itself is more problematic
than fertility and mortality. And this link between migration and environment is the least
analyzed to component of the population dynamics.
Part of the difficulty in treating sustainable development, as we determined determinant
of demographic processes arises, from the fact that there is no single blue print of
sustainability. Economic and social system differ widely among countries, thus all those
sustainable development has become a global objective, each nation will have to work out
its own concrete policy. Also in the different regions of the world, the nature of population
problems is different. The developed countries are in general characterized
by low birth rate, low death rate, low infant mortality rate, below replacement fertility,
near zero or negative growth rate, high percentage urban, and the problem of population enclosure.
Then large developed countries have, just opposite of that.
Several countries in both developed and less developed countries have unique demographic
situation, and they do not conform to the generalize pattern, which in mentioned just
now. Sustainable development policies may have both desirable and undesirable consequences,
in both developed and developing countries. Impact on economic growth is just one, there
may be other impacts also, we have to explore what those impacts can be, generalize connections
may not exists. And each country requires its own response to population processes,
as well as known strategies for sustainable development.
All though there may be strong theoretical link is between sustainable development and
population; sustainable development is neither necessary nor a sufficient condition for effective
population management. And the reverse is equally true, you can have sustainable development,
with low as well as high birth rate; falling birth rates have also not been associated
with better environmental management. So, there are many countries, where birth
rates are falling, but that does not translate so well into climate policies or green house
gas emissions, which is today becoming more a factor of the nature of technology that
we used for productive process. It may be emphasizing that both that developed and the
less developed countries, will have to work on sustainable development and population
simultaneously, forgetting their differences. And in these respect environmental networks
and civil society actors, and media, and interaction, and that networks of intellectuals, social
scientists, political scientists will have to play an important role. If we leave the
environmental issues only to national governments, and in traditional political frame works,
we cannot solve the global problem of environment. And the difference is a perception between
developed and developing countries will remain. So some the environment problem is a new problem,
and this also requires that we think in new ways to solve this problem, at the global
and micro level; anything? Thank you.