DATE: December 12, 1991
TO: Distribution
FR: Lawrence H. Summers
Subject: GEP‘Dirty’ Industries: Just between you and me, shouldn’t the World Bank be encouraging MORE migration of the dirty industries to the LDCs [Least Developed Countries]? I can think of three reasons:
1) The measurements of the costs of health impairing pollution depends on the foregone earnings from increased morbidity and mortality. From this point of view a given amount of health impairing pollution should be done in the country with the lowest cost, which will be the country with the lowest wages. I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that.
2) The costs of pollution are likely to be non-linear as the initial increments of pollution probably have very low cost. I’ve always thought that under-populated countries in Africa are vastly UNDER-polluted, their air quality is probably vastly inefficiently low compared to Los Angeles or Mexico City. Only the lamentable facts that so much pollution is generated by non-tradable industries (transport, electrical generation) and that the unit transport costs of solid waste are so high prevent world welfare enhancing trade in air pollution and waste.
3) The demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and health reasons is likely to have very high income elasticity. The concern over an agent that causes a one in a million change in the odds of prostrate[sic] cancer is obviously going to be much higher in a country where people survive to get prostrate[sic] cancer than in a country where under 5 mortality is 200 per thousand. Also, much of the concern over industrial atmosphere discharge is about visibility impairing particulates. These discharges may have very little direct health impact. Clearly trade in goods that embody aesthetic pollution concerns could be welfare enhancing. While production is mobile the consumption of pretty air is a non-tradable.
The problem with the arguments against all of these proposals for more pollution in LDCs (intrinsic rights to certain goods, moral reasons, social concerns, lack of adequate markets, etc.) could be turned around and used more or less effectively against every Bank proposal for liberalization.
—Lawrence Summers
Background to this memo: NYTimes article, Harvard Magazine article (suggesting that this internal memo was not written by Summers himself, but had been signed by him and intended to “stimulate internal debate”)
Check out this paper which discusses why economic cost-benefit analysis cannot be used as a moral basis for analysing environmental policy.
These amazing embryonic animal photographs of dolphins, sharks, dogs, penguins, cats and elephants are from a new National Geographic Documentary called “Extraordinary Animals in the Womb”.
(via whichdreamedit)
Tundra is by definition a cold, treeless landscape. But scientists have found that in a part of the Eurasian Arctic, willow and alder shrubs, once stunted by harsh weather, have been growing upward to the height of trees in recent decades.
The reason for the change: the warming Arctic climate, they say.
Roughly 30 years ago, trees were nearly unknown there. Now, 10 percent to 15 percent of the land in the southern part of the northwestern Eurasian tundra, which stretches between Finland and western Siberia, is covered by new tree-size shrubs, which stand higher than 6.6 feet (2 meters), new research indicates.
“What we have found essentially is that the growth of these shrubs is really linked to temperatures,” said study researcher Marc Macias-Fauria of Oxford University’s Biodiversity Institute. “They are reacting to warming temperatures by growing more.”
First Contact (by CMGW Photography)
Much like us, our hairier cousins have their own distinct facial features, unique combinations of jawlines, eye shapes, and nasal widths that make them recognizable on sight. But have you ever studied the differences between other primates’ faces?
Photographer James Mollison was struck by how similar great ape facial features are to human features, and wanted to take their portraits for much the same reason you photograph human faces: to gather a sense of identity. He traveled to Cameroon, Republic of Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Indonesia to photograph gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, and orangutans who were orphaned by the bush meat and live pet trades. Seen together with their unique faces and expressions, it’s hard not to see the apes as individuals with their own personalities.
Meditating lemur
Jeff Parker, “BP’s Sick Gulf Fish.”
Living in denial, indulging in episodes of escapism…
Sometimes, I wish people had the courage to face up to the challenges that currently plague the world. It’s not just about the environment; Social issues are at stake, too. They are simply not mutually exclusive. And the circle of people who get affected most are the local communities. Shirking your responsibility in environmental matters, is no longer just about going against environmental ethics, about brushing aside animal welfare. Continual exploitation of nature, and pollution, will definitely implicate livelihoods of fellow humankind. And that makes you a person who-because of how you choose to live and act-denies those affected local communities the fundamental needs, such as access to clean water and food and shelter.
We can all do our part. We need to speak up and act on our words. Sitting on the fence on environmental matters, does not distinguish you from MNCs who directly impact the environment. As end-consumers, our choices will indirectly affect the environment, AND the local communities who live in the fringes of the citiscape.
My colleague asked, “Why are you reading all these articles? Won’t you feel depressed?”
I do slip in and out of sadness, desperation and helplessness… but not for long.
I know I am not alone in this, and that this minority is growing.
Running away from these issues wouldn’t help. (That was exactly what I replied her.)
“But you can’t do everything…” she said, partially conceding to my reply to her question.
I just smiled, and quoted Sydney Smith.
Taken at Pulau Ubin, Singapore on 27 February 2012
There are three unquestionable facts regarding species conservation:
- the protection of species costs money;
- governments and environmental organisations have limited budgets for a range of activities they deem necessary; and
- our way of conserving nature is failing because, despite increasing public/private support and awareness, the rate of destruction of biodiversity is not decelerating.
Triage in medicine and conservation biology are similar in that both aim to maximise the number of survivors. Nevertheless, in a situation of emergency, medical triage would mean not treating a moribund individual in the first place if the resources at hand could compromise the survival of other individuals, whereas in conservation biology moribund populations/species/habitats often attract the majority of funding.
An alien visiting the Earth (and equipped with more common sense [“sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts”] than the human race) would find it astonishing that the countries which rule the world’s economy invest less on protecting the planet than on destroying it (armament), or searching for new planets (astronautics).
