The western world have industrialized and developed at the expense of their

environment. They are now telling the developing world to conserve and protect the
environment. Is that not a trick to keep Africa underdeveloped?
According to Cunningham P. William and Saigo Woodworth (1997) environment is defined as
the circumstances or conditions that surround an organism or group of organisms as well as the
complex of social or cultural conditions that affect an individual or community.

The American Heritage (2005) also defined environment as all of the biotic and abiotic factors
that act on an organism, population, or ecological community and influence its survival and
development. Biotic factors include the organisms themselves, their food, and their interactions.
Abiotic factors include such items as sunlight, soil, air, water, climate, and pollution. Organisms
respond to changes in their environment by evolutionary adaptations in form and behavior

Environment is an important factor in the development process because, it supports all the
activities that are geared towards bring about development. However, in pursuit of development,
people have come up with approaches to enable them develop. However, there is a tendency in
most of these approaches to disregard environmental issues in favor of development.

Katie Willis (2005:148) noted that, the approach used by the developed world (modernization
approach) was built on the ideas of mobilizing technology to use resources more efficiently, not
least through industrialization and the mechanization of agriculture. The basic attitude of the
natural environment was one of seeing natural resources as inputs into a human-devised system.
Very little, if any, attention was paid to the potential environment damage or the long term
sustainability of such an approach. The approach was very much of ‘grow now’, ‘clean up later’;
unfortunately the cleaning up process is often very long and costly, if it is possible at all. The
same approach was also introduced in the third world countries in 1950s (Post-World War II
Period), in a bid to help them overcome poverty.

However, this resulted into increased poverty due to increased environmental damage involving
the destruction of ecosystems beyond repair. In the 1960s and 70s; environmental problems started
emerging leading to reduced carrying capacity of the earth. Environmental issues have become an
issue of contention between the North and South (North-South debate).

As indicated above, the western world have industrialized and developed at the expense of their
environment. Therefore, their urging of developing countries to conserve and protect the

2
environment can be seen both as a trick to keep Africa underdeveloped, as well as a benefit or
good thing for Africa as discussed below: -

Deepak Lal (2005:1) noted that, the developed countries could like to perpetuate poverty of Africa
and the great Eurasian civilizations (India and China). As they see that, these nations are growing
and seeking to become prosperous and achieve parity with the West. He argued that, this can not
only be considered as way of perpetuating poverty, but also as an unfair treatment of Africa and
developing countries in general by developed countries. The disproportion in the per capita
consumption of resources between the North and the South is on the order of 3 to 1 or even 15 to
1, depending on the measures chosen; in the extreme case, the North may consume thirty times
more than the South. The South rightly argues that, the bulk of the truly global problems
confronting humanity are in fact Northern in origin and are caused by the North’s gargantuan over
consumption.
He argued that, the most serious feature of this inequity is the phenomenon of global warming,
which is attributable to emissions of carbon dioxide (mainly from fossil-fuel burning), methane
(from cattle and agriculture) and chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs (from refrigeration, air
conditioning, paints, aerosols and electronics). The North accounts for up to 90 percent of the
carbon dioxide that has so far accumulated in the earth's atmosphere. Going by the index called
"natural debt of a nation," developed by environmental scientist Kirk Smith, the disparities are
indeed huge. If U.S. per capita annual emissions (5.2 tons) were to be frozen and India's (0.22
tons) were to grow at recent rates, India would not reach one ton a year until 2024, a level
surpassed by the United States well before 1900.

Related to the above, Deepak Lal (2005:5) argued that the North is asking the South to restrict its
consumption as part of a "global" effort. The worst example of this inequity is the Montreal
Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer (1987), an international treaty that restricts
the consumption of CFCs on pain of trade penalties for noncompliance. This is an exercise in
dealing with symptoms, not causes, and of treating unequals as equals. Since no responsibility is
attached to different countries for their varying contributions to the CFC burden, no rights and
obligations follow. So the South, with its current emission of 12 percent of CFCs, is asked to make
the same commitment, albeit over a longer period of time, as the North, which produces 88 percent
of the total. The underlying assumption is that it would be a disaster if every Chinese or Indian (not
American or Japanese) had a refrigerator, but that it is not necessary for the rest of the world to

3
find substitutes for CFCs. And yet it is the Montreal protocol that is being offered by Northern
governments as the preferred model for global environmental regulation in waste dumping,
tropical forestry, climate control and conservation of genetic resources of which last the South
accounts for 90 percent of the world total.

Deepak Lal (2005: 5) further pointed out that, as economic historians have emphasized, the
Industrial Revolution which led to the rise of the West was based on converting from the
traditional organic, rural economy. Previously, people had used energy derived from land, the
supply of which was ultimately limited. The Industrial Revolution created an economy based on
the use of mineral energy, one that still uses fossil fuels, whose supply, for all practical purposes, is
virtually unlimited. It is by burning fossil fuels that the West has gotten rich and redressed the
mass structural poverty which had been the fate of its masses for millennia. The same opportunity
is now available to the developing countries. But the ‘Greens’ (Environmentalists) in the West, in
serving their dubious cause of halting global warming, want to deny the same means for the
developing world's poor to climb out of poverty. That leaves little hope for the world's poor.
Despite their protestations to the contrary, the Greens are the enemy of the world's poor.

Deepak Lal (2005: 8) also noted that Western pressure is increasing and this is reflected in the
various proposals to introduce labor and environmental standards in the World Trade Organization
and to tie issues of human rights to trade and investment under the rubric of ethical trading are of
this ilk. They have neither logic nor ethics on their side. Even if these protectionist attacks are
beaten back, they cause international friction that could slowly unravel the new liberal
international economic order. These efforts tend to aggravate the suspicion of many developed
countries that the newly emerging globalized economy will lead to a form of cultural imperialism
that will undermine their ancient and cherished ways of life. Rich, developed countries often take
advantage of the problems in third world countries by dumping hazardous waste, building
industrial plants which emit pollution and carrying out mining excavations in ecologically fragile
areas. Some transnational companies that produce chemicals that would be considered far too
dangerous for use in their own countries find a market for their products in the undeveloped
countries.

The developed world could also desire to expand their ecological footprints (the sum total of the
earth’s surface dedicated to our consumption of food and fuel and other needs) through eco-
imperialism and this has been achieved through global environment governance. The developed

4
world has argued the third world countries to reduce on their current activities that degrade the
environment, yet for them they continue with production techniques that cause greater danger to
the environment. Critics of such an idea argue that the developed world want third world to act as
their ‘sinks’ (the earth's natural capacity to absorb greenhouse gases) and also help in the
sequestration of carbon. (The provision of long term storage of carbon in the terrestrial
biosphere, so that carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is reduced).

It should however be noted that, ‘as the world’s consciousness awakens to the terrible things that
human beings have done to the environment, it is clear that underdeveloped countries will be only
committing suicide by following development models that jeopardize the environment. It is a well
known fact that success ceases to have meaning, particularly if the quest to find it is self-
destructive. Under-developed countries need to step out the bubble of seeking a development
agenda that is predicated by the standards of advanced industrial countries. The development
model of highly industrialized countries is indeed the source of most past and current emissions of
greenhouse gases, and it will be foolhardy to follow that model’. (Chief K. Masimba Biriwasha,
2008: 1)

Chief K. Masimba Biriwasha, (2008: 1) further noted that Developing countries have a moral
responsibility to ensure that they do not behave like blindfolded sheep. In that vein, if the map of
success developing countries are looking for is characterized by practices that are destructive to the
environment, it becomes meaningless, and endangers humanity globally.

He also argued that, in effect, developing countries will be left with greater problems that many of
the advanced industrial countries face today if they do not take proactive action against practices
that damage the environment. In many developing countries, the phenomenon of climate change is
already unraveling so-called development gains through unreliable rainfall patterns that negatively
affect agriculture, which is the economic mainstay of many of the countries, increased number of
environmental refugees. For example, in the Eastern part of Uganda, Mozambique and
Bangladesh. Time has come for the environment to speak out due to the numerous wrongs done to
it for decades.

Chief K.Masimba Biriwasha (2008) has also argued that, the scope of human suffering that will
be caused by harmful environmental practices will rip communities and nations apart. He therefore
argues that, going ‘green” is a better long term strategy to achieving sustainable success in

5
underdeveloped countries compared to pursuing destructive environmental practices. It will also
avert the prevailing consequences faced by most developing countries. But simply ignoring
“going green” will indeed destroy the base of natural resources that developing countries need for
sustainable economic, social, and political prosperity. The Third World should, for the benefit of
health and livelihood by "going green" and being conservation conscious. He argued that, a large
portion of the populations in undeveloped nations depend on fish as their only source of protein.
The destruction of the ecosystems in which fish thrive could mean the destruction of human
population in these areas.

Glenda Thompson (2009) noted that, the world's resources are the common heritage of mankind
and should therefore be protected for generations to come. It is important for advanced industrial
countries who have expended thousands of dollars on destroying the environment, over the years,
for their own selfish gain, to help prevent the same destruction from taking place in
underdeveloped countries and help them to understand the value of "going green."

In conclusion, the truth is that the western world have achieved industrialization and development,
but at the expense of protecting and conserving the environment. It has now come to a time, when
their development can no longer be sustainable with out protecting and cleaning up the damage
done to the environment. The clean up exercise being costly and in most cases unattainable, they
have restored to seeking the developing world to protect and conserve the environment to prevent
further damage to it. This has been viewed by developing countries as a trick by the developed
countries to keep them underdeveloped and also act as carbon sinks to the West. Though the
intention may be true, it can also be argued that the protection of the environment could benefit
Africa to avoid the adverse socio-economic impacts that may result due to environmental
degradation.

6
 Bibliography

Bidwai Praful (1992) Earth Summit '92 - II: North vs. South on Pollution. The Nation, June 22,
1992. Page Number: 853+. Volume: 254. Issue: 24. The Nation Company

Chief K.Masimba Biriwasha (June, 2008) Should-Poor-Countries-Be-Forced-to-Go-Green?

Accessed at http://www.groundreport.com/World/Should-Poor-Countries-Be-
Forced-to-Go-Green

Cunningham P. William & Saigo Woodworth (1997) Environmental Science: A Global Concern

4th Edition. New York, Mc Graw hill

Deepak Lal (2005) Environmental Activists Perpetuate Third-World Poverty,

Published in Environment & Climate News, The Heartland Institute.

Accessed at http://www.heartland.org

Glenda Thompson. Is it fair to ask underdeveloped countries to "go green" when many

advanced Industrial countries owe their success to destructive environmental practices?

Accessed at http://www.helium.com/debate on 5th may, 2009

Katie Willis (2005) Theory and Practice of Development Studies. New York, Routledge

The American Heritage (2005) Science Dictionary. New York, Houghton Mifflin Company.

Accessed at http://www.thefreedictionary.com/environment