Public Forum, October Topic: Poverty Reduction vs. Environmental Protection

Poverty will always exist. The problem with attempting to solve poverty is that, once we fix it, it acts as a temporary fix. However, it is possible to create a long term solution to environmental protection. David Ricardo, an English political economist, developed an idea known as the law of iron wages. Ricardo believed that there was really only natural prices and market prices of the business world. Ricardo believed that the natural price of labor was how much it took to maintain the laborer. However, the natural wage is not what's needed to actually keep a laborer above what is now known as the poverty line. Ricardo said, "An English laborer would consider his wages under their natural rate, and too scanty to support a family, if they enabled him to purchase no other food than potatoes, and to live in no better habitation than a mud cabin; yet these moderate demands of nature are often deemed sufficient in countries where 'man's life is cheap', and his wants easily satisfied." Ricardo's point is essentially that in a capitalist world market, employers are going to want to pay the least they can for labor. Unless the entire world was to suddenly turn anti-capitalism, Ricardo's€™s iron law of wages apply around the world. Thus, capitalism will always lead to some form of poverty. Any "fixes" that our opponents may have to poverty are null and void because although they may fix poverty in the short term, this will only propagate the vicious cycle. This vicious cycle as Ricardo says is that "high wages give to the increase of population, the number of labourers is increased, wages again fall to their natural price, and indeed from a reaction sometimes fall below it." Thus there is no final way to solve poverty. Environmental protection is essential to boosting the world economy, which wipes out poverty reduction. According to the Worldwatch Institute, investing in greener sources of fuel and energy such as solar and wind power would create up to nearly eight times as many jobs as fossil fuels can. The jobs of the people that run green energy facilities do not require a high education or specific talent, just an ability to construct and operate machinery. It is a perfect way to create jobs for impoverished people who might not be making money otherwise. Also, greener energy is cheaper, so all of the world, including poor countries, would be saving over $180 billion a year according to Greenpeace if the United Nations implements use of renewable energies worldwide. Not only that, but climate change will actually harm the poorest states, reducing their economies even further. Currently, according to the World Bank, the majority of the world's impoverished countries lie below the equator, coincidentally where the majority of global warming threats are currently focused. Reduced rainfall and more frequent disasters in these regions would destroy water supplies, devastate crops, and bring down economic productivity in these areas, not only causing starvation and droughts, but causing populations to spiral down into even deeper poverty than they are already experiencing. Also, some of the poorest nations, like India, Bangladesh, and some parts of Africa, are already low-lying, so a rise in sea-level would have disastrous effects on these regions. Therefore, we see how prioritizing poverty would only continue the vicious cycle in which attempts at aiding impoverished peoples only make their economical dilemmas even worse, as well as their actual health. Environmental degradation is a leading cause of health problems. The main health problems stem from the problems with the water supply. According to a UNICEF report from August 16th 2009, "Every day approximately 4,500 children die before their fifth birthday due to unsafe water, sanitation, and hygiene. Simple, affordable and effective interventions such as handwashing with soap and water help reduce the incidence diarrheal morbidity the second biggest killer of children under five - by up to 47%". Yet, currently no attempts are being made to effectively cut down on this. According to the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization, "If children are taught proper hygiene, primary schooling can transform them into health educators for their families, thereby passing on vital information and skills that can reduce household vulnerability to deadly diarrhoeal diseases by at least 40%." Thus, it is more sensible for the UN to invest money into the environment if they could solve poverty related deaths by just dealing with the water supply. In addition to the water problems, the climate change has been impacting agriculture. Environmental problems and agriculture have been proven to be correlated according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007), "Recent studies indicate that increased frequency of heat stress, droughts and floods negatively affect crop yields and livestock beyond the impacts of mean climate change... Climate variability and change also modify the risk of fires, pest and pathogen outbreak, negatively affecting food, fiber and forestry." According to the Institute for Environmental Decisions in Zurich, "In most developing countries the agricultural sector still employs most of the population and adds substantially to the countries' GDP (e.g. up to 59 per cent in Guinea Bissau; WRI, 2003). Reductions in crop yields could lead to famine and undernourishment." Due to all the aforementioned reasons I urge a Con ballot.