What is Wrong With Us?

Going to Goucher, a politically liberal institution, I’ve seen my fair share of environmental newsletters, pamphlets, videos, and other informational media depicting the atrocities committed by the human race on Mother Nature. I know we’re not doing a good job, in fact the crimes we’ve committed against our home planet are tantamount to beating a small child about the face until they are not longer cute to look at.
Speth delves delve a bit deeper into the reasons for the ravaging of earth. The reason summed up when Speth cites the disappearance of Sumatran and Kalimantan forests, “Asked why, an Indonesian professor of forestry replied simply, “Money, power, and politics,”’ (Speth 39). Indeed it seems that money is a driving force behind many of our environmental problems, and the ever-growing economy will make it harder and harder to protect natural habitats and ecosystems. “The world economy’s forward momentum is large […] there is no reason to think that the world economy will not double and perhaps double again within the lifetimes of today’s young people,” (Speth 18).
With many of the worlds forests being in developing countries and the pressure for these countries to keep up, the decision between economic growth and environmental stability is one that is all too easy for governments to make. Therefore, we must highlight the economic benefits of saving this earth (because having a clean, providing, beautiful planet is not enough…). Speth cites nature-based tourism as one of the biggest industries in the word, and no one is going to want to visit the great redwood stumps. We live in a “now” world and the benefits people can’t see in the immediate future are tossed aside. For instance, since the carbon/climate issue isn’t immediately detracting from our way of life it becomes a problem for future citizens of the earth to worry about.
Going along with the economy theme, those that have the least say or ability to change things are those that rely upon earth’s ecosystems the most. The poor and impoverished have the most to lose, many relying on the earth for their necessities and income. “Summary for Decision-makers” reveals that, “In 2001, 1.1 billion survived on less that $1 per day of income, with roughly 70% of them living in rural areas where they are highly dependant on agriculture, grazing, and hunting for subsistence,” (12). Speth refers to the solution thought up by Roger Stone and Claudia D’Andrea, saying, “the relatively simple act of allocating responsibility for managing and protecting forests to the local groups and communities that depend upon their healthy survival rather than on their destruction,” (Speth 40).
It seems that by simply convincing more people than not that the environment and its ecosystems are worth a damn will we be able to take steps to slow the damage already done. In a world infatuated with money it’s not a little ironic that the “almighty dollar” is green.