Rich Vs Poor The Growing Global Divide By Parul Mehta When it comes to natural disasters -- our vulnerability to them, their rising toll, and the need for better preparedness -- global warming is a relatively tangential issue. The real problems are socioeconomic. Disasters disproportionately harm poor people in poor countries because those countries typically have densely populated coastal regions, shoddily constructed buildings, sparse infrastructure, and grossly inadequate public health capabilities. Poor land use leads to widespread environmental degradation, such as deforestation and wetlands destruction, which in turn exacerbates flooding and landslides. Even 'Disaster' is partial Emergency preparation and response capabilities are often inadequate, and hazard insurance is usually unavailable, further slowing recovery. The world's poorest 35 countries make up only about 10 percent of the world's population; they suffered more than half of the disaster-related deaths between 1992 and 2001. Data from the Centre for Research on Epidemiology of, and Disasters in Brussels, Belgium, as well as the Red Cross and the reinsurance industry, show that the number of disasters affecting at least 100 people or resulting in a call for international assistance has increased from an average of about 100 per year in the late '60s to between 500 and 800 per year by the early twenty-first century. The reason is not an increase in the frequency or severity of storms, earthquakes, or similar events, but an increase in vulnerability because of growing populations, expanding economies, rapid urbanization migrations to coasts and other exposed regions. Global unsustainability is essentially the result of two factors: 1) The rapidly increasing population and the consequent increasing pressure on natural resources and life support systems of the Earth, and 2) The declining physical resources of the Earth, the regeneration of which is unable to match the pace of mans' indiscriminate use. Gambling on Global Warming Global warming is a serious issue and warrants concerted action. But it is not the only issue, and it will not serve the environmental cause well to be associated exclusively with unremitting climate-change alarmism as a response to every issue. Deforestation, wetlands loss, and over-development are all ecological issues more directly pertinent to disaster preparedness than global warming. And on a broader level, the only thing that will prevent these ecological losses is development: lifting the poor of the world out of poverty, reducing the distance between the rich and the poor. What some environmentalist are claiming is that global warming -- along with over-development and other such deleterious human activity -- is raising sea levels and reducing or eliminating the natural barriers (mangroves, coral reefs, etc.) that protect coastlines from the worst of the tsunami damage. As a result, the damage was worse than it needed to be, and will be worse yet in the next catastrophe. While such disasters cost developed nations more in absolute terms, the per capita costs - not to mention the toll in human lives and injuries - is far higher in developing nations. What can be done, both to reduce the vulnerability gap between rich and poor nations and to reduce the overall impact of disasters? Despite what you might think from following the flow of research money, international conferences, and public statements from environmentalists, "it is absurd to suggest that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is an important part of the answer." Is Environment linked with Poverty? Environmentalists are, often hobbled by their single-issue focus. If we, not as environmentalists but as progressives, really want to reduce human suffering and protect the global environment, our energy and time is often best spent tackling ecological problems indirectly - by fighting poverty, pushing for third-world debt relief, lobbying for fairer and more progressive tax policy in developed nations, and working to find and celebrate examples of the kind of entrepreneurial innovations in energy, transportation, urban planning, medicine, politics, etc. that will create a world where ecological health is a natural side effect. In a report released on 6th April 2007,the IPCC's Working Group 2, which is responsible for monitoring the impacts of climate change impacts as well as adaptation and vulnerability issues, says that two-thirds of the atmospheric build-up of carbon dioxide comes from the United States and western Europe. It says that rich nations far from the equator are spending billions of dollars to limit the risks to themselves, investing in new technologies such as wind-powered plants that turn seawater to drinking water, flood barriers, floating homes and genetically modified crops. At the same time, however, the report points out that only tens of millions of dollars have been provided to vulnerable countries close to the equator, raising concerns of a growing 'climate divide' between wealthy and poor nations. The IPCC report says that it has become increasingly clear that global precipitation is shifting away from the equator towards the poles. This will increase agricultural production in regions like Canada and Siberia, but leave drought-prone countries such as Malawi even shorter of water then they are at present. The report cites obsolete meteorological data, a lack of irrigation, and excessive dependence on single crops, vanishing forests, and land degradation as major challenges to African countries facing climate change. We need to point out that things that are harmful to birds, fish, and redwood trees are often not very healthy for us, either. And, when we are told that poor countries can't afford the "luxury" of environmental protection, we need to respond that they can't afford not to protect their environment. Climate change will have a particular impact on poor people who live in least developed countries, with those living in Small Island developing states in Asia's vast river deltas and in most African nations being the most vulnerable. Although a number of funds have been created to support adaptation in the poorer nations, the few hundred million dollars that have been pledged is only a tiny fraction of the tens of billions of dollars that are needed to allow poor countries to adapt adequately. As an example taking the case of the use of forest resources we must appreciate that fuel wood collection by poor, rural folk alone is not responsible for their degradation. In fact, it is the unlimited consumption, of industrial products indirectly obtained from the forest resources, such as paper, rubber, plywood, packaging etc. that contributes more towards forest degradation. Gender Bias Globalization Those who suffer the most by the degradation of the primary natural resources are indeed the poor, the womenfolk in rural areas and the tribal people who are dependent on land, forests, grasslands or streams, rivers and ocean waters. They are most seriously affected by degradation of the ecosystems. Unsustainable pressures on land and natural resources are exerted much more by urban dwellers, which are far removed from the resources that sustain them but who consume larger quantities of resources and energy than the simple rural folk. Environmental ethics are also concerned with the ownership of resources. It may be pointed out that at the global level the rich developed countries of North America and Europe own and use greater resources and energy and generate more waste than the developing countries. Further, in order to meet their high consumption requirements they buy from the resource-rich, but economically deprived nations at low cost. This practice depletes resources and requires immediate adoption of better trade practices and awareness among the developed nations of the consequences. Another significant issue of environmental ethics is the issue of rural-urban equity. Urban and industrial expansion is not only consuming rural land, but also resources generated in the rural sector, such as food and raw materials are being used to sustain urban life and living. Thus, either way the rural sector stands depleted. This imbalance must be checked with the encouragement of household, cottage, and small-scale industry that would not only help contains the exodus of rural population to the cities but also initiate regional development. Environmental destruction is largely caused by the consumption of the rich. The worst sufferers of environmental destruction are the poor. Even where nature is being 'recreated,' as in afforestation, it is being transformed away from the needs of the poor and towards those of the rich. Even among the poor, the worst sufferers are the marginalized cultures and occupations and, most of all, women. Need of the Hour - An Holistic Approach There cannot be proper economic and social development without a holistic understanding of society and nature. If we care for the poor, we cannot allow the Gross Nature Product to be destroyed any further. Conserving and recreating nature has become our highest priority. The Gross Nature Product will be enhanced only if we can arrest and reverse the growing alienation between the people and the common property resources. In this we will have to learn a lot from our traditional cultures. It is totally inadequate to talk only of sustainable rural development, as the World Conservation Strategy does. We cannot save the rural environment or rural people dependent on it, unless we can bring about sustainable urban development.. Simple living is really at the core. Many of the world's poor live in environmentally degraded systems, which are unproductive and the root cause of poverty. Thus 'economic' poverty in many parts of the world is due to 'ecological 'poverty of the area. It is the restoration of these natural systems, and through natural resource management practiced at the grassroots level, that will help in eliminating poverty. A massive global enterprise for ecological regeneration and for building up the natural resource base that would help the poor in all rural communities throughout the world, needs to be undertaken. Poverty alleviation by removing ecological poverty should be the major goal of globalization. Livelihoods based on the local natural resource base, which are not drastically affected by international market trends and mechanisms, and are largely self-sufficient, would lead to self-reliance and sustainability.