Please visit the Archive for other articles.
World Politics, Blame and the Environment
by Brian Risman, Publisher, www thelawjournal co uk - 25 August 2002
Page 3 of 7
Accordingly, the ecological movement became viewed in Western countries as being on the political fringe. Instead of promoting ecology as a good issue for everyone to take part, the so-called ecological champions relegated the issue to the political extremist agenda. That is not to say, however, that progress wasn't made in spite of the political extremism. In the United States, President Nixon set up the Environmental Protection Agency, long before other countries made similar moves.
The Third World also contributed to ecological disaster -- yet their crimes were attributed by the ecological ideologues to Western capitalism. Again, the critical need got lost in extremist politics. While it is clear that Western businesses did contribute to the problem in the Third World, the fact is that many Third World countries received their development assistance not from the West, but from Russia and China. As mentioned above, the Communist countries could freely abuse their environment, since there was no free press to highlight the damage. The same pattern took place in Third World countries, whether Capitalist or Communist supported -- the despots running these countries did not allow a free press -- or any dissent -- resulting in wholesale ecological abuses. Was the lack of land reform the issue? Yes, and no. If the land was held by the ruling elite, there would be no concern over the ecological damage. Equally, if land reform occurred, the newly enfranchised peasants engaged in wholesale abuses of their own, burning and clearing, eliminating vital oxygen-producing trees and foliage, while creating massive air and land pollution.
|
|
 |