Global Resource Depletion in the Policy Arena - Essay Example

?Global Resource Depletion: A Developing Focus in the Policy Arena Introduction Recently, it has become evident that the direction of human development is in numerous instances environmentally harmful and unsustainable. The magnitude of the sustainability crisis is debated, but while environmental depletion or, more particularly, global shortages of essential raw materials and energy supply persist in spite of much discussion and government measures, it seems that the phenomenon is one of larger evidence and problem, not smaller (Esty & Ivanova 2004). Thus, there is a proposition that these global shortages will displace environmental risk as a driver of government policy. As always, environmental issues identified have been more complicated, the need for an immediate response more pressing, the pressure of evidence more noticeable, and the discourse about the most appropriate measures more pronounced. Hence, the following discussion explores the contributing factors to the rise of the issue of global shortages as a primary motivator for government policy. National governments’ understanding of environmental issues has evolved significantly as time progressed. Since the 1960s, the first case of contemporary environmental problem and policy measures to solve this was mostly about a group of independent concerns that may be addressed reactively, with remedial strategies (Nilsson & Eckerberg 2007, 8). Restricting resource use, direct methods of nature preservation, and environmental protection, were the primary policy responses. Eventually, the factor that ‘brings about’ rather than ‘indications’ of environmental crises had to be dealt with became more evident-- for instance, cutting down the production of waste and regulating consumption rather than merely preventing ‘environmental risks’—real or possible hazard of detrimental impacts on the environment and life forms by resource shortages, wastes, emissions, runoffs, and so on, resulting from an organisation’s operations (Bohm 2001, 3). In line with this, it became apparent that environmental issues were, in reality, economic and social problems. Explaining the Proposition The idea of the proposition that ‘global shortages of essential raw materials and energy supply will displace environmental risk as a driver of government policy’ implies that a healthy environment is vital to achieving globalisation’s maximum potential. On the contrary, an unhealthy environment can considerably weaken the possibility of economic progress through globalisation. The idea that increasing strains on, and depleting supplies of, important natural resources, like energy, and raw materials can seriously weaken the mechanisms of economic development is not an unfamiliar one (Najam, Runnalls, Halle 2007, 10). Nevertheless, what is recent is the recognition that the remarkable economic growth the world has been witnessing has made the issue of global shortages of natural resources a serious problem that could eventually become the sole major obstacle to sustained economic growth (Najam et al. 2007, 10). Because of this possible outcome, governments are now trying to prioritise the problem of natural resource depletion over environmental risks. The idea of the proposition is quite straightforward. Primarily, natural resources like wood and oil are the essential raw materials responsible for a great deal of global economic development (Najam et al. 2007, 10). Moreover, there is a fully limited availability of these raw materials. And essentially, the quantity of raw materials being extracted has increased dramatically in the past decades, particularly with the massive economic growth of major developing countries and growing global progress. The world is by now dominated by heightening global rivalry for essential raw materials (Digby 2001). Thus, governments are aggressively taking actions to secure continuous access to these raw materials and control over important natural resources. In the meantime, besides threats to economic stability, environmental effects of global shortages of natural resources become one of the major bases of government policy. Resource degradation creates serious problem for sustainable development. First, unsustainable processes endanger the ability to reproduce and efficiency of renewable natural resources and associated environmental support mechanisms (Diederen 2010). Some of the environmental impacts of gas and oil misuse are habitat disorder and increase in the production of greenhouse gases. Although global water supplies are possibly adequate to satisfy present and future needs, there are serious disparities in water distribution within and across countries. Furthermore, sustaining adequate quality of water cannot be guaranteed. A lot of regions are by now exposed to health-related and environmental risks associated with water contamination (Diederen 2010). According to the United Nations (2011), the condition is most severe in Third World countries, particularly in territories going through accelerated urbanisation. In addition, incompatible strategies of water management worsen soil erosion in numerous areas. Excessive extraction of groundwater resources may lead to a variety of adverse environmental outcomes, such as accumulation of heavy metals, damages to lowlands, desertification, etc. Hence, the basic objective of government policies for environmental protection is to strengthen welfare by taking full advantage of the net gains from resource exploitation within the perspective of economic growth. This requires consideration of off-site and on-site outcomes, non-business and business use, and the equilibrium between utilisation by present and future generations (Lee, McNeill, & Holland 2000). The tasks of policy for natural resource management can be classified into two groups: (1) dealing with inconsistencies between private and public gains from resources; and (2) regulating resource use and preventing depletion of natural resources. The first one requires monitoring the use and preservation of resources (Esty & Ivanova 2004). For non-renewable resources, such as fossil fuels and minerals, the major policy issue is the maximum level at which reserves should be exhausted. The solution to this problem, consequently, rests on the exclusivity of the resource, technological advancements, government rules and taxes, price expectations, and capital tradeoffs. Evaluation is made difficult by the presence of social and environmental forces, which have to be considered (Lee et al. 2000). On the other hand, according to Deke (2007), for renewable resources, a major policy issue is the option between exhausting them now, preserving their natural condition for later use, or adopting important measures. In actual fact, government policies can contribute to the sustainable management of natural resources. For instance, the British government is carrying out a research on present global scarcities of essential raw materials. An article in the UK Guardian entitled ‘Government review to examine threat of world resource shortage’ (Wild 2010, para 2), reports that Britain’s Department for Food, Environment and Rural Affairs is spearheading the programme. The department thinks that, “every sector of the British economy was directly or indirectly vulnerable to future shortages” (Wild 2010, para 2). The British government is one of the proofs that the problem of global shortages of essential raw materials and energy supply is beginning to displace environment risks as a primary catalyst of government policy. The government is acting in response to the increasing evidence of the imminent disintegration of a variety of natural resources. As substantiated by the statement of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, there are currently 49 essential raw materials that may sooner or later become more difficult to acquire (Wild 2010, para 3). As stated in the article, the European Union is especially alarmed about “rare earths, collections of metals and elements found in a wide range of gadgets and consumer goods, including batteries used in electric cars” (Wild 2010, para 7). The dilemma is that the largest supply of rare earths is found in China, which is presently implementing export limits. Thus, Western countries are trying to persuade China to supply the important raw materials. As reported in the Guardian (Wild 2010, para 12): Elsewhere, the US, the EU and Mexico have announced that they want to bring a World Trade Organisation case against Chinese restrictions on exports of nine key raw materials, including coke, bauxite, magnesium and fluorspar, all important for producing steel, aluminium and other chemicals. Under the World Trade Organisation (WTO), this issue is not treated as resource disintegration, but one of free trade (Wild 2010, para 14). Hence, the British research on global shortages of essential raw materials may be viewed as largely focused on free trade. Nevertheless, these findings reveal that the imminent collapse of environmental mechanisms is fast approaching. Rapid depletion of essential raw materials and natural resources could create a massive obstacle towards sustained economic development, and perhaps become the sole major barrier to the survival of present globalisation pathways. The phenomenon is not recent, but it has turned out to be more factual and more pressing. Development, obviously, is an irony in the point of view of sustainable growth. Development is needed so as to meet the demands and requirements of populations, particularly among the most impoverished ones; but lasting global development is not possible in a limited structure (Eccleston & March 2010). According to Eccleston and March (2010), several researchers report that humans already went beyond nature’s productive ability and that a large portion of the ecological unit is presently exhausted. Even though reports about resource disintegration have been quite anecdotal before, economic common sense and existing patterns show that, as rivalry for limited raw materials heightens, prices will skyrocket. Before, technology has contributed to the mitigation of several of these strains by formulating new strategies and by more extensively setting out available technological strategies. Nevertheless, the possibilities of rising prices, greater demand, and declining reserves are already encouraging governments to push for greater control over important raw materials (Diederen 2010). The competition is currently on not only for gas and oil, but for lumber, rare earths, metals and even biodegradable junks. For a lot of developing economies gifted with essential, highly demanded resources, this creates the possibility to exploit the potentials of globalisation and recover from poverty (Nilsson & Eckerberg 2007). Earlier studies show that global and local economies have not been especially remarkable at facilitating the sharing of resources to the poor; the task for governments at present is to discover ways to accomplish just that. A similar task is to reduce the detrimental impacts of rivalry over resources on the underprivileged. Prices of fish, for instance, are predicted to escalate, diminishing the capacity of poor families to buy fish. In regions where majority of the population relies on fish for their subsistence, poor households will be deprived of food security whereas the rich, both globally and locally, contributes to price increase (United Nations 2011). People reliant on the use of natural resources or the services of the ecological unit, could be stripped of their subsistence as home-grown resources are exhausted or destroyed and will require aid to facilitate the shift to another form of livelihood. Although technology and market processes could perhaps help manage growing rivalry over important raw materials, they provide no solutions for the possible collapse of the environment. This is a serious hazard to the maintenance of globalisation pathways and the survival of humanity. A large number of vital ecosystem benefits, such as climate constancy and soil productiveness, are ignored or underrated and, as a result, as these environmental benefits are endangered, market indications, which would supposedly stimulate technological growth of other reserves, will be absent (Deke 2007). More significantly, people do not possess the technological capability to generate alternatives for ecological benefits at the price or at the quantity that would be required. Moreover, environmental destruction could affect output or efficiency through adverse impacts on health (Bohm 2001). As mentioned by Lee and colleagues (2000), the international community, for instance, discovered that millions of people die annually in the region of Asia-Pacific because of environmental crises like inadequate sanitation, low-quality water, and air contamination. The inherent assets of the ecological unit, like basins or watersheds, is seriously depleted, generating an opportunity to demand payment for services that could have been given free of charge, for all time, if sustainably controlled. Likewise, ecological disintegration, national and global will influence the sector of agriculture, on which almost all of the underprivileged groups in the world rely directly for food and subsistence (Digby 2001). As stated in Najam and colleagues (2007, 13), current studies, for instance, show that global climate change might significantly cut down the wheat expanse. Although improvements in productivity in self-controlled regions could somewhat counterbalance the disparity, whether more impoverished tropical societies could have the capacity to purchase food from more affluent areas across the globe is indecisive (p. 13). The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), in order to prevent starvation, has already demanded intensified attempts to create common crops’ damage-resistant strains (Najam et al. 2007, 13). Hence, it is most probable that weakened environmental security will generate more adverse circumstances for economic development and also put greater weight on global collaboration. Current studies have reported and attracted global interest in this cited ‘probability’, which has began to turn into a reality (Najam et al. 2007, 13). Some scholars, on one hand, have thoroughly reviewed literature on the planet’s environmental status and how human beings are unduly exploiting numerous essential natural resources (Eccleston & March 2010). The current increase in the prices of oil had the impact of making this relationship identifiable and concrete even to commonplace people. In contrast, the currently published Stern Review has openly proposed that these environmental demands have currently started influencing the processes of the global markets and the economy and that effects of climate change may result in ‘losses of 5-10 percent of global GDP, and decrease welfare by up to 20 percent if damages include non-market impacts and are weighted for ethical/distribution effects’ (Najam et al. 2007, 13). This computation involves assessment of damages brought about by serious climate changes. As one, and in the perspective of competition over economic development in Asia and in other places, these sets of evidence indicate that increasing environmental damage could enforce quite substantial costs on economic development and globalisation (Deke 2007). In addition, they embody the guarantee that a healthy environment is integral to the health of human beings in terms of economy and ecology. To a certain extent, globalisation is an environmental reality. There are existing strings of environment issues that reach different countries. The hazard of climate change, dangerous organisms, disintegrating fisheries, and water contamination are all actual forces that have been intensified by globalisation. However, environmental forces also influence globalisation’s tempo and predisposition (Deke 2007). According to Lee and colleagues (2000), limited natural resources, like water and oil, influence the views of societies of their self-sufficiency or interrelationship and, as a result, affect their political and economic relationships in the international arena. The importance that people across the globe give to the ecosystem and flora and fauna inside foreign territory may stimulate global political demands that restrict the political and economic options of a country. Conservation of essential raw materials and natural resources presents an opportunity for governments trying to endorse local and global joint measures. Better understanding of the reciprocity within ecosystems further encourages the formation of a stronger international environmental system. Evidently, environmental protection is one of the major responsibilities of national governments. However, several crises are undoubtedly global or local in magnitude and cannot be dealt with in the absence of global collaboration. Nevertheless, motivations to implement measures that are personally logical but collectively weak are particularly intense in connection with resource disintegration, which at present may be attributed to everyone and no one (Eccleston & March 2010). For instance, it is logical for a hunter to attempt to take full advantage of his personal benefit by hunting as much game as possible. Yet, as a group, this approach results in excessive use of the resource, putting the whole hunting village at a lost than if it had formed a collaborative system to manage the hunting grounds sustainably. When expanded to the global arena, the issue becomes increasingly severe and difficult without definite guidelines and organisations monitoring sustainable management of natural resources. These global problems necessitate actions developed outside the arena of national governments. Although not rigidly required, global collaboration is useful in resolving a cluster of general issues experienced throughout the world and hence of interest to policymakers across the globe. The issue of resource disintegration or depletion of natural resources should be addressed by local leaders. But the issue of global shortages requires international collaboration. This may explain why some scholars believe that environmental risks will be displaced by concerns over global shortages of essential natural resources as a driver of government policy in the future. Environmental risks only require local policy response while global shortages require extensive cooperation between national governments and the international community. Due to the magnitude of the nature and effect of such global shortages policymakers are shifting their attention to this emerging crisis. However, the reality that numerous societies confront a similar issue presents another justification for cooperation—the gains to acquire from communicating policy knowledge, information, and empirical findings. Comparative research frequently contributes to the explanation of problems and most excellent practices to be adopted in return. As much as an issue needs considerable methodical or scientific examination, collaboration may also produce more accurate and more representative empirical findings that may help national governments and the international community to find solutions to global shortages of natural resources. Conclusions Humanity is confronting one of its most difficult trials, which is the imminent collapse of natural reserves on which it has built an intricate but weak structure. Global shortages of natural resources are a complex and unavoidable crisis which if ignored will create more and more dangers to humanity’s existence. Therefore, governments should adopt an ingenious and aggressive policy measure developed from thorough and in-depth research but implemented promptly and determinedly. This paper showed that the issue of global shortages is a broader and more important policy area than the problem of environmental risks. References Bohm, G. (2001) Environmental Risks: Perception, Evaluation and Management. Oxford: Emerald Group Publishing. Deke, O. (2007) Environmental Policy Instruments for Conserving Global Biodiversity. New York: Springer. Diederen, A. (2010) Global Resource Depletion. UK: Eburon Uitgeverij B.V. Digby, B. (2001) Global Challenges. Oxford: Heinemann. Eccleston, C. & March, F. (2010) Global Environmental Policy: Concepts, Principles, and Practice. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Esty, D. & Ivanova, M. (2004) Globalisation and Environmental Protection: a Global Governance Perspective. New Haven, CT: Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy. Lee, K., McNeill, D., & Holland, A. (2000) Global Sustainable Development in the Twenty-First Century. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Najam, A., Runnalls, D., & Halle, M. (2007) Environment and Globalisation: Five Propositions. Winnipeg, Manitoba: International Institute for Sustainable Development. Nilsson, M. & Eckerberg, K. (2007) Environmental Policy Integration in Practice: Shaping Institutions for Learning. UK: Earthscan. United Nations (2011) Decoupling Natural Resource Use and Environment Impacts from Economic Growth. Washington, DC: UNEP?Earthprint Wild, M. (2010) “Government investigates resource shortages” Energy Bulletin, http://www.energybulletin.net/52967 Read More