Seeking Sustainable Development

In line with this week's readings, here's a NYT's article (or video, for your viewing pleasure) that covers a captain of industry who turned green after waking up to his manufacturing company’s practice of overflowing landfills and incinerators with negative externalities. It was a pleasant surprise to hear the chairman of a billion dollar corporation sincerely appreciate the moral imperative of environmentally-friendly business practices, but the real kicker came with his revelation that the supposed trade-off between economics and the environment is a specious myth. In fact, eliminating the waste and pollution from production significantly improved the company's bottom-line: green practices conserved energy, reduced production costs and enhanced the quality of products.

The green revolution that occurred in this company happened at the volition of one person, not at the behest of government regulation or a cauldron of whiny liberals. This fact confirms my belief that green practices will prevail only when business and industry understand that sustainable development is not only socially responsible, but also profitable.

Alison Butler’s essay speaks to the potential for harmony between environmentalism and free trade and provides a glimmer of hope that these apparent rivals can peacefully coexist. Butler notes that government regulation and market mechanisms vary across countries, which implies that trade and markets needs to be properly managed to ensure environmental protection. And because of the variance in markets and regulations, free trade and environmental protection will only agree when industrialized nations finance the environmental protection of the developing world.

Just as Butler's argument hinted at the convenient options for industrialized nations to take advantage of lax environmental regulations in the developing world, the Singer and Stiglitz readings did not inspire confidence in the environmental movement. After reciting the perils of global warming, Singer peers into the ethical dimension of environmentalism to glean an equitable distribution of blame for pollution and emissions. Singer offers a wealth of justifications to blame and tax the big polluters, especially the US, but no real solutions. Similarly, Stiglitz seems to be focused on the most efficient way to punish polluters: emissions taxes, carbon trading, and international sanctions are all options. To me, the problem with the use of taxes and carbon trading is that, on some level, they seem to condone emissions and pollution as long as the polluter pays for his injustices and green laws and policies are enforced.

While the financial incentives and disincentives that Singer and Stiglitz are pragmatic and are certainly a step in the right direction in cutting pollution, this line of thinking avows globalization as a crisis rather than an opportunity for innovation and technological breakthrough. Borrowing an observation from Friedman’s “The World is Flat,” the Chinese character symbolizing “crisis” carries two meanings: one signifying danger, the other opportunity. While the danger of global warming is a tired and well-known criticism, environmentalists need to focus on spreading a new gospel: the opportunity for a fresh start of sustainable practices and the profits that creativity offers.

As no good deed goes unpunished, it would behoove environmentalists to stop moralizing in the search of fairness and equity, and reframe their message in a tone that the business community can appreciate. Environmentalists must emphasize the moderate profits to be gained from sustainable development in the short run rather than the catastrophic losses that could possibly be suffered by their grandchildren. For example, the bid to consumers to buy a hybrid car emphasizes gas efficiency of 60 mpg and escaping the captivity of exploding gas prices, not the tendentious claim that sea level is going to rise 34 cm in the next century if fossil fuel consumption doesn’t stop. In short, the medium is the message, and governments and environmentalists need to find a message of reward and opportunity rather than punishment and crisis. Harking back to the aforementioned NYT's article, the right sales pitch of sustainability will compel businesses and citizens to go green voluntarily rather than through external economic instruments or dooms-day scenarios.