The Current Discussion: In the future, global prosperity will present more of a threat than poverty, according to a recent Post op-ed. Is this just rich-American rhetoric, or is the world really getting too prosperous for its own good?
I am astonished to read the commentary of Michael Gerson, who is an analyst from Council on Foreign Relations, a group that presents itself as “nonpartisan”. Blaming other countries is not an excuse to avoid liability for one’s own inactions. Yet I am not surprised.
These comments attempt to debate prosperity rather than discuss sustainable methods of creating it. They are exemplary of the simplistic, abrasive, “us-vs.-them” approach, and its currency of isolationist short-sighted thoughts. It frames a wish for a surreal maze designed to benefit from globalization without contributions to the process. Who will listen to a man from a developed nation, and a technology master, with a long resume of squandered opportunities for past last 15-16 years (the Kyoto Agreement being one, the federal veto of California’s stringent pollution standards being another)—a nation that lingers amongst the bottom ranks of recyclers in the world? How can the importer-in-chief and a SUV addict be taken seriously-- with rising consumption of energy per capita, negative savings, and the lowest return per dollar of healthcare spending?
Prosperity is pegged to a long-term stable process and sustainable consumption of resources. Nations will eventually create their own policies as they deem fit, even though they might have a leap in consumption. Developed nations (such as Japan and northern European countries) are large consumers of raw materials, natural resources and energy. However, most have turned to long-term plans and invested money and human resources in efficient machinery. Better technologies and forward-looking policies have united their practice of sustainable consumption, recycling and regeneration. Porsche, for example, is known to be a symbol of conspicuous consumption. Nevertheless, why is it that the exhaust fumes from its latest engines are cleaner than its air intake in a polluted city like Los Angeles, Mexico City or Beijing? Or let us ponder upon another example in the developing world: why did the United Arab Emirates, sitting atop massive deposits of oil and gas, show off its newly developed carbon-neutral city and mass transit systems to President Bush during his recent visit?
It is time to reset trajectories and redefine long-term goals. In contrast with Mr. Gerson’s analysis, the matter is not limited to a narrow split of ideology between conservatives and liberals in America. A wholesale redefinition of “development” and economic activity benchmarks is necessary in a globalized world and that reform must extend to 1950s institutions such as the UN, IMF, the World Bank and other development and institutional structures. States and governments are giving way to new paradigms of interconnection. The top two steel producers in the world, yesterday’s benchmark for prosperity and industrial development, are Indian-owned companies although production plants are in developed countries.
Clean water, nutrition and medicine remain the wish of about 60% of the world population. I tend to believe that they are inseparable from human rights that ought to be universal, and not benchmarks for prosperity. Education must be the common platform which can tilt both “them” and “us” towards sustainable use of resources and keep irresponsible consumption in check. Blaming others is merely cheap, short-sighted politics.
Please e-mail PostGlobal if you'd like to receive an email notification when PostGlobal sends out a new question.
