The development paradox

China and India's progenic rise has long been discussed by western viewers, and as there seemingly relentless economic strides bring them closer and closer to First World living standards one can only feel that something has to give. A tightrope is being walked. A balancing act between sustainable development and environmental catastrophe.

As soon as one embarks upon any form of jounrey; whether it be via motorised rickshaw through the 14 million strong swarm of civilians in Delhi, or a brave endeavour across one of the nations busy but ill-maintained highways, aspirations of the Indian populace are clear to see. Advertisements such as 'Air tel' line the side of the road showing idolised citizens sporting new mobile phone head sets or wearing a suit of fine calibre.

The Indian economy has missed a step. The nation has become obsessed with those services which it feels can provide First World living standards for as many of its citizens as possible. Yet people who agonize over being able to afford these capitalistic symbols are largely without work as the manufacturing economic sector has seemingly been bypassed. As Edward Luce in "In Spite of the Gods" notes, the population of India remaining in absolute poverty numbers around 300 million. With a total population of roughly 860 million, this becomes a truelly startling statistic. One is reminded of Miller's Willy Loman whose inclusion in the 'American Dream' delusion causes him to seek those objects built in obsolescene leaving him short both in terms of sustainability and happiness.

Yet poverty, although a pressing local issue is arguably not the most scary, at least from a worldwide perspective. India's vast population and unrelenting pursuit of higher living standards means that in the years to come its carbon dioxide output may soon exceed that of both America and China especially if it chooses to use the progeny of ash-filled coal it has at its disposal. Similar concerns can be seen just as greatly in China where the smog of Beijing provides one of the most graphic examples of environmental effects. However, the West cannot preach to these two emerging powers. It is our respective 'Industrial Revolutions' which have been largely to blame for the depletion of the polar ice caps to date, indeed America still remains the greatest producer of carbon dioxide and therefore the greates contributor to global warming in the world. Therefore a paradox remains, in our search for a greener world we must ask these countries to avoid the same mistakes that our own industrialising ancestors made.

How can we expect these countries not to develop when we already have all that they aspire to? If they are to develop it is essential that they do it with as limited environmental impact as possible and it is our duty as previous villains of the environmental landscape to help them do so. The crux of the Copenhagen talks therefore lies in the willingness of the west to present financial benefits to developing nations, most notably China and India. If we do not meet their demands then their subsequent burning of fossil fuels will not only cause disastrous poverty in their own nations but also cause a worldwide environmental catastrophe. Indeed, by 2030 India is projected to have 200 million vehicles (Statistic from Twenty-first Century India) which potentially represents a huge increase in not only national but global carbon emissions.

We can not afford to let either India "cut of their nose to spite their face". Sure enough with increased global warming the northern states of Indian will face extreme drought and with the irrigation already insufficient for small farmers throughout Uttar Pradesh and Rajastan the consequences would be disastrous. The talks therefore not only signify the necessity of our own countries to become greener but of the necessity for the western countries to lead those developing superpowers in their economic as well as environmental development.