To befoul or not to befoul

The use of fossil fuel was a catalyst for the development of many nations. Many tasks have become mechanised and automated, increasing efficiency for production. The level of wealth and quality of life for many has vastly improved since. Yet, it is undeniable that this progress came at a price. To power modern machines, the usage of fossil fuel is necessary. As we all know, the by-products have some very nasty implication on our health and the environment.

Majority of the countries with the worst air quality are the developing nations with the greatest GDP growth.  This is not a new trend. Many affluent nations, such as various European countries and the USA, had their fair share of air pollution problem during their period of economic growth in the 20th century. The decline in air quality seems to be associated with an increase in economic growth.

Today, China has one of the fastest rising GDP in recent years and the worst air pollution. As China became a global manufacturing hub, many of its citizens leverage the opportunity for financial growth. The increase in wealth allowed access to ownership of vehicles for many, which worsened air quality.

With increasing awareness on the effects of poor air quality, why are countries not stopping the pollution? Isn’t health more important than wealth?

With enough regulations, reducing pollution is possible. To prepare for their parade for the 70th-anniversary of the end of world war 2, China imposed strict regulations on air pollution. Vehicles were only allowed to be driven on alternate days and numerous factories shut down for weeks. By the time the parade came, the air was clearer. Unfortunately, the smog returned within 24 hours of lifting the regulations.

Embed from Getty Images

Tiananmen Square on a hazy day, compared to the clear sky seen during the parade.

We criticise the developing nations for not growing sustainably, but with the rapid economic growth, China has successfully lifted millions out of poverty. Besides, many affluent nations developed without any checks in the past, now that it is no longer their turn, should they deny other’s pursuit of economic growth?

For a more localised perspective, Singapore has become one of the wealthiest nations today due to its heavy investments in the shipping industry- one of the most polluting sectors. In last week’s blog post, Dr.Coleman asked me this question:

“If you could go backward in time, would you prefer not to see LKY’s vision of SG as an international shipping hub not be realised knowing that your lifestyle might not be what it is today?”

Honestly, I don’t have a clear answer. While I wouldn’t want to give up on my current quality of life, I wouldn’t want others to sacrifice the chance to improve their own for environmental conservation. What right do we have to deny those that seek to improve their quality of life? Choosing between economic growth and environmental conservation is a true dilemma.

Ideally, countries should seek to develop economically while ensuring that they are not destroying the environment. After all, what good can wards of cash do when Earth can no longer sustain life?

I want to end off this week’s blog with this question for the readers, “How ethical is it to deny development for the sake of environmental conservation?”. Let me know what you think in the comments below.

One thought on “To befoul or not to befoul

  1. Wow – thanks so much for creating this post ! I’m so glad a comment sparked it.

    You may be heartened by China’s recent announcement of its plan to go carbon neutral by 2060. Not soon enough and I admit, I’m not clear on what this REALLY means (as in, only within its borders or including the many tentacles it has extended overseas) but I still think it’s a big statement on the world stage.

    I would LOVE, LOVE, LOVE to have a special discussion sometime with interested students to hear what you all think about the tension between economic growth & conservation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *