Conundrum 1 – Poor Countries still forced down globalization route

While we can look at sustainability models in the west, these (sustainable) choices in many African, South American and Asian Countries are severely restricted by globalization. Using SAP’s (Structural Adjustment Policies) (wikipedia ref.) mean that special fiscal conditions are imposed on Countries in return for loans from the IMF, for example healthcare and education come under attack. Decisions are imposed on farmers as to what cash crops to grow. The crop prices can later come under competition attack from other Countries where SAP’s are introduced causing a downward spiral of prices for farmers and reducing the countries ability to pay back the loans. The weaker power causes destruction of environment, GM introductions and powerlessness. More recently a system called “Economic Partnership Agreements” has been introduced.

Peter Sutherland (Director General of the GATT (now the World Trade Organisation (WTO)) seems to genuinely believe that free trade is the way to help poorer countries. This fails to see the problems of imposed competition on sustainability. Worryingly, rock star anti-poverty activists like Bono and Bob Geldolf appear to be following this model. They may be adopting a short term approach that its better to do something than nothing and address immediate poverty taking a pragmatic position that they won’t change the system. As they don’t have the same vested interests of politicians and banking organisations it’s more likely they’re saying it as they see it but that they suffer from a blind spot that is failure to recognise the unsustainable nature of globalization.

The rich world is now heading more towards protectionist policies as a reaction to the sever global economic recession.  Now the IMF is focussing its attention on some of the European Countries where the economic situation is worst.

The conundrum for poor countries (globalization advocates would suggest) is that they would be weakened by the removal of globalization. The poorer citizens deserve a chance of the good life we’ve just had in the rich world is part of the midnset – China and India being ana example – but we’ve just seen the impact that had on global energy supply, pollution and going forward other resource depletion.

Pesticide use – a prime example of unsustainability

Pesticides are designed to kill what we humans see as pests (weeds, insects and fungi).  The problem is that anything designed to kill one thing doesn’t necessarily leave everything else alone. One of the big risks with pesticides is the hormonal impact on humans and other organisms in the food chain.

Another problem is that we humans fail to see how we are interdependent on, for example insects. Bees are the most glaring example because if they are wiped out (check out the colony collapse disorder post) then about a third of all pollination ends, and in turn there goes a huge block of food for us humans – shoot ourselves in the foot scenario.

One of the main reasons for pesticide use is monoculture farming – the growing of one crop only. The lack of diversity in a field or region makes it attractive to certain organisms and hence affects yield.  The so-called pests develop resistance over time and the ammount of spraying required can increase accordingly. A vicious circle.