I think it is interesting when people bash developing countries for their lack of environmental policies. Wagging a self righteous finger, and shaking your head sadly at nations who are trying to get their economies off of the ground isn’t really going to help at all.
First of all, environmental protection is a huge drain on developing nations. In ten years in Mali more than 100,000 hectares of land were deforested; most of the trees there weren’t cut down by people looking to farm land, they were cut by the impoverished. People cut down the trees and haul the lumber back to the city were they sell it... For pennies. There are so many people who have suffered misfortunes that they are all cutting down trees, praying to make enough to feed themselves, while driving down the price of firewood. For the most part the people don’t know any better, and those who do are too busy struggling with today to think about tomorrow let alone ten years from now
The western world didn’t care about the environment while they were developing, because they were not at a point where they were able to. There was still too much poverty, too much desperation, and too many people just hoping to get through the next day. It was only later in history that such concerns made it to capital hill.
The only way that developing nations are going to be able to concern themselves with the environment is if the developed world helps them out. Somehow I don’t see that happening.
The US talks about alternative fuels, but is too deep in the pockets of oil companies to really try. Sure, we’ve started experimenting with ethanol produced from flour... But Brazil has discovered that the sugar derived equivalent is ten times more efficient, and yet the US blocks experimentation and imports with tariffs and quotas.
Aside from that, the real environmental threat comes from factories, refineries, and chemical plants. People everywhere could stop driving their cars and it wouldn’t end (or significantly decrease) the threat of global warming. California has started taking steps forward, but other states drag their feet.
The US is considered a developed economy; it has the luxury of being able to educate the populace, and the luxury of being able to deal with environmental issues. The US should be standing up for the environment, because historically the US has taken the moral high ground and been one of the leading forces for change. As of October 2006 one hundred and sixty-six countries have signed the Kyoto Protocol. The US is not among them.
If you want to wag your finger at some one turn it around.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Let's see.. You say that the developed countries overlook the long-term environmental issues for current economic growth because they have no other way.. They do.. That way is to learn from the past of what are today the developed nations. Besides these developing countries have so few resources that they cannot even afford to overlook the environmental consequences! An example is the Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004, the deadliest ever recorded. Although the tsunami itself may not have been caused by humans, the effects were definitely the result of human involvement. The protective reefs, sand dunes and mangroves that look out toward the Indian Ocean in a broad arc from Sri Lanka to Bangladesh and Indonesia were dynamited and bulldozed by a force as unstoppable as the tsunami itself -- the force that drives some of the world's fastest-growing economies. Countries like Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, made way for shrimp farms, enlarged the beach and built tourist resorts by destroying the coral surrounding the beaches. If the corals were still present, the tsunami would not have had such a disastrous effect. If this wasn’t bad enough, these countries have also been destroying the coastal mangroves because they are considered incovenient by the shipping industry. By doing so, they destroy the double fortress of low red mangroves and the tall black mangroves of protection that offer natural protection. Had these mangroves still been around, the tourist hotels would have been forced to stay behind them, thereby saving at least some of the tourist and local lives lost in the tsunami.
I agree that environmentalism is important, really I do. But that’s not really going to change anything.
But the only real alternative is economic ruin, something that no country wants to risk.
Companies don’t care about the environment, they care about profit. Since it generally isn’t profitable to have environmentally friendly policies they won’t, unless they are forced to or it becomes profitable. The only way for it to be profitable to care about the environment is for consumers preferences to change, so that they care... But that’s doesn’t happen until the populace is well educated and all of the basic needs are met. That is not going to happen in developing nations.
So government regulation is the only way to go. Government regulation requires oversight, which is expensive, and some way to decrease pollution. The government can either force the company to clean up after themselves or create a tax so that the government can clean up after the companies. Either way it will increase costs to firms and since many firms in developing nations are perfectly competitive it will force many of them into bankruptcy because they cannot internalize the costs. The countries will also lose much of the capital investment that they receive from foreign investors, because they will lose some of the economic advantages that they had.
Such a policy could cause economic stagnation, and increase the number of people in poverty (people who live on less than $1 a day, adjusted for PPP).
As I said: The best way to get developing countries to develop environmentally friendly policies is to set an example for them to follow, and start aiding their efforts... But the US would have to care to do that.
Also, many developing nations HAVE natural resources, they are just poorly managed.