Weekly 11- International and National Sustainability

ARTICLE 1

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30155400/

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/11/world/asia/11china.html?_r=1&ref=world

To control a population that seemed to be splurging out of control, and in an attempt to “modernize,” Chinese leaders instituted a one child policy beginning in 1970’s. They were afraid that resources, particularly land, would not be able to support a large growth of people. The policy, though effective in reducing population (from what it would have been if the policy was not implemented, an estimated reduction in 400 million births) has a serious backlash. Males are coveted more than females in mainstream Chinese culture, especially in rural areas. Sons, unlike daughters, carry on the family name and have an obligation to take care their parents in old age. Furthermore, sons are more valuable in a rural setting because of the manual labor required. Many female fetuses are either aborted, or are subjected to infanticide once born. A preference for sons over daughters had led to a large gender gap, around 32 million excess males in the reproductive age group according to the 2005 Census report.

I label this as a “national planning” issue. Wheeler mentioned that national planning comes from four sources: national constitutions, and legislative, court and executive bodies. This issue comes from an executive source, as Wheeler claims, “executive branch agencies implant and enforce policy, and carry out substantial planning activities in their own right” (Wheeler 2004, pg 115). However, this article outlines a potion of a national sustainability issue that Wheeler has thus far failed to address: all the affects of sustainability policies —including the backlashes. It’s not all rainbows and cleaner air. It also entails a substantial, borderline communistic increase in national government jurisdiction (and hence several losses of personal freedoms), as well as critical unexpected policy outcomes, such as the one depicted above, reverberating on a nation-wide scale. I truly believe that true, and long-lasting sustainable polices come from the bottom-up, and not the top-down. A measure Wheeler touched on in Chapter 4, but in further reading has seemed to favor direct federal government intervention as, “lower levels of government do not have the perspective, resources, jurisdiction, or political will to effectively bring about change” (Wheeler, 2004, pg 122). Though the above quote is partially true, it leaves the most important stakeholders out of the policy-making realm—everyday people: subjecting them to the elitist views of the elected and bureaucrats.

Different types of sustainability have, in some measure, been reached because of the One Child Policy. No doubt decreasing family size has had a positive environmental effect—fewer cars are on the road, less food is produced, and hence less soil and water pollution, and resources are extracted and utilized to a smaller extent. This environmentally benefits both the existing Chinese population and the inhabitants of the world. But what’s the cost?

Numerous people are affected by this sustainability agenda; first and foremost the Chinese, especially the family units. Several reports have surfaced about the affects of this policy: for example, not only does one child have two parents to encourage and guide them, but two sets of devoted grandparents as well—this has led to the term “Little Emperors” for Chinese (probably upper-class) children because of the vast amounts of attention and money they receive from family members (the richer the parents are the more they can afford tutors for their child, and hence that child will earn more money because he/she was afforded more opportunities—thus violating Wheeler’s most beloved notion of sustainability-- equity) Further, all six people (parents and grandparents) are dependent on the child to do well. Thus, a lot of pressure is placed on small children to succeed in school, which has led to increase rates in anxiety and suicide. Also, because there are excess males, as the article pointed out, scholars fear there will be an accompanying increase in crime as men, without the influences or even prospects of female companionship, will turn to devious measures to divert their attention. Other nations are affected as well. Some scholars believe that not only will crime increase because of excess males, but the Chinese culture is in danger of becoming more militaristic on an international level. All of this, on top of the fact little girls are subjected to infanticide and abortion.

No doubt Wheeler strongly disagrees (except about abortion) with these adverse affects; however, how can they be averted? Policy backlashes are inevitable, and even the most well-intentioned plans can go awry. National sustainable measures may seem good on the outset, but always question the cost. Is sustainability, as a group of experts define it, worth it?

ARTICLE 2

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30093861/

Fishermen off of the coast of the Philippines have caught a rare shark, only one of forty known to exist in the wild. The captured megamouth shark weighed approximately 1,100 lbs and was 13 feet long. The shark was accidently caught by fishermen’s net and dragged to shore. The World Wildlife Fund begged the fishermen not to butcher and eat the shark—shark meat is a local delicacy. However, the WWF’s plead was ignored. The shark was caught in deep waters—an ecosystem that is filled with other endangered species, such as the whale shark, and is thus in need of international protection.

Because endangered species, especially those captured in international waters, are important to all inhabitants of this world, this issue is labeled as “international planning.” Several groups are affected by this policy; first, the entire world and future generations of the world. All species are part of a delicate ecosystem, and the elimination of one can carry significant consequences. Also, local residents are affected as well; many coastal communities are reliant on the abundance of their surrounding ecosystem to provide a living for themselves, and food for their families. Further, the fishermen were directly affected (as well as stores that sold the shark meat) as ignoring the pleas of the WWF more than likely increased, at least temporarily, their economic well-being.

Wheeler (2004) stated that “consciousness of global interdependence is one of the hallmarks of recent ecological thought and efforts for sustainable development” (pg 102). And indeed, so it seems. Our world is becoming increasingly interconnected, and the environmental actions of one nation can substantially affect those of another. The elimination of the megamouth shark, or other endangered species, can have profound effects on the world as the whole—not only are megamouth sharks found off of the coast of the Philippines, but have been observed in areas off of Hawaii and other Pacific Islands. Annihilating this species could cause an explosive growth in shrimp (their prey) and this in turn could winnow out other species (as they compete for food sources), and thus give rise to other problems. Global markets, especially those relying on the current balance of the ecosystem, could be near destroyed; leaving some local fishermen and their families in poverty.

Another point demonstrated in this article is the power of international institutions. Wheeler (2004) claimed that international institutions are gaining power. I fail to believe this, unless international sustainability issues also promote, or are connected to, a national agenda. As Wheeler himself claims, international institutions are often in conflict with one another, and dominant western cultures are reluctant to give power to international bodies. This case is illustrated in this article—the WWF can plead as much as they please, but they simply have no enforcing ability. International bodies have to rely on national support to give them legitimacy. Thus, though necessary, it may be impossible to rely on international institutions to decide environmental policy unless individual countries, for their own reasons, support their decisions.