Blog Action Day: Poverty and environmentalism

Here in my time zone, we have just a few more hours left of Blog Action Day 2008, where bloggers all over the world commit to covering one specific topic. This year, that topic is POVERTY.

I wanted to examine the cross-section between poverty and environmentalism. And I won’t just focus on China because I believe this issue is widespread and relevant to many countries.

SUSTAINABLE LUXURY

The first thing that comes to mind is the idea of “eco-luxury,” which has been defined as “the ‘production process’ of economic activities that simultaneously promote a sustainable economy and high quality standards,” according to one lodging website. This can involve trends in tourism, production and fashion, for example in China, an eco-friendly boutique hotel in Shanghai, a responsible manufacturer of bamboo kitchen products, and organic baby clothes. (For a bigger list of worldwide examples, check out this online contribution from environmental consultant Michael Jessen.)

WorldChanging.com writes about “The Sustainable Luxury Myth,” responding to the argument that pricey eco-friendly products and experiences are out of reach for most people, and therefore, cause for concern (from a social equality standpoint.) But, Josh Dorfman writes, “Equating sustainability with luxury is like equating technology with luxury.” What he means is that we’re only in the early stages of sustainable design and consumerism, just like there was once an early stage of computer manufacturing, and once the trend becomes more mainstream, so-called “luxury” goods will be more accessible, and therefore, affordable. He writes:

Two years from now there will be no more talk of aspirational/out-of-reach sustainable luxury. Sustainable design-entrepreneurs are on the cusp of the next phase of economic growth where scale is achieved and prices begin to fall. As this transpires and more consumers articulate their demand through their purchases, multinational corporations, fueled by the profit motive, will respond to market signals and employ their vast economies of scale to drive prices for sustainably designed products even lower. Millions of consumers will be the beneficiaries as will be the planet. Sustainability might still take the form of luxury goods but it will also be found in more affordable products.

So, in this case, poor people will simply have access to environmentally friendly options. In other words, they will still be relatively poor, but at least they’ll be eco-friendly.

But what about if we think about the reverse process? How does environmentalism (and its byproducts, whether it be products or services or activism) actually reach out to poor people, and lift them out of poverty? When does environmentalism become the actual catalyst for change?

GREEN COLLAR JOBS

The best example of this is the growth of “green-collar jobs.” Van Jones, social entrepreneur and author of “The Green Collar Economy,” believes that a green economy, based on industries like renewable energy, sustainable agriculture and green building, can achieve the following:

• Rebuild a Strong Middle Class
• Provide Pathways Out of Poverty
• Strengthen Urban and Rural Communities
• Protect Our Health and the Health of the Planet

Jones fulfills this mission through the advocacy efforts of his nonprofit, called Green For All, which recently  “worked with national partners to produce “Green Jobs Now” – the first-ever ‘national day of action’ calling for green-collar jobs in the United States. More than 600 communities in all 50 states participated, with more than 50,000 signing a petition that called for federal government action to spur green jobs.”

Protecting and responsibly managing ecosystems can also help fight poverty.

PROTECTING ECOSYSTEMS

The Marketing & Strategy Innovation Blog has this nice write-up in reference to a World Resources Institute report, “The Wealth of the Poor: Managing Ecosystems to Fight Poverty,” which views the physical environment as a valuable asset to the poor. “WRI deftly connects the dots,” the blog says, “showing how natural resources — soils, forests, water, fisheries — managed at the local level are frequently the most effective means for the rural poor people to create wealth for themselves.”

Nearly half of the world’s six-billion people live on less than $2 per day, and three-quarters of them live in rural areas that depend overwhelmingly on natural resources for their income. When these ecosystems become degraded, as many have over the past 50 years, they are unable to provide the fuel for economic development that can boost the rural poor beyond subsistence and into the mainstream of national economies.

But then again, poverty and environmentalism can also contradict each other.

PARADOX?

Take this example: “Would you rather help the poor or combat global warming?” asks Tim Haab of Environmental Economics.

In short, a group of environmental organizations and cities (Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Boulder, Colorado and Arcata, California) want to sue U.S. development agencies (Overseas Private Investment Corp. and the Export-Import Bank of the United States) that fund power plant construction projects in developing countries.  The premise, such projects produce greenhouse gas emissions which cause global warming which harms the U.S. So, such projects should fall under the National Environmental Policy Act.  It requires economic assessments of government projects with environmental impacts.

So let me get this straight…U.S. environmental organizations want to improve the environment by stopping development projects in the poorest countries.

These examples all show the close links between the environment (and its degradation) and poverty. The point to remember is to always be concerned with the local situation. Where there are eco-friendly goods to be sold, make them affordable. Where there are green jobs to be created, make sure low-income people have access to them, through training, education and employment outreach. And where there are communities that depend on nature for their economic and social well-being, be sure to protect their most prized possessions–the land, sea and air. Finally, if and when it comes down to a choice between helping the poor and combating global warming, make sure that one doesn’t come at the expense of the other. There shouldn’t be a choice between either/or.