Savvy Vegetarian Blog

news and opinion on vegetarian diet and nutrition, vegetarian lifestyle, green living, and environment

Got Something To Say? Tell Savvy Veg!

Fri, 10 Aug 2007

Think Globally About Poverty, Hunger, and Environment

Do poor people care less about environmental protection than those who are better off economically?

The 8.5.07 issue of EarthTalk Newsletter discusses recent research into the connection between economic equality and environmental protection. It makes a good a follow up to last weeks post, Organic Agriculture is the Answer to World Hunger,

The research referenced by the EarthTalk article shows that in countries with a big gap between rich and poor, environmental protection has a lower priority. In countries with more economic equality, safeguarding the environment has a higher priority.

According to the studies, the main reason is that poor people aren't interested in spending tax dollars on environmental projects. The researchers found "found plenty of evidence to suggest that 'poorer individuals tend to prefer less stringent environmental policy.'" Their conclusion is that greater income parity will give rise to better environmental protection.

It's a nice idea, and I'm all for it. But after reading the NOW Article, about organic agriculture and world hunger, I think that perspective is skewed and simplistic. The problem isn't just that the wealth is unevenly distributed, but that the global economic system is based on environmental degradation. Poverty is a side effect, both at home and abroad. It's not so simple as poor people voting against environmental initiatives.

For poverty stricken people everywhere, the main concern is keeping body and soul together. If the problem isn't right on their doorstep, affecting whether they starve or not, they don't have time or energy to worry about it. And even if that's the case, they don't usually have a lot of power to do something about it. Voting may not be an option, or count for much. Literacy levels are low, and activism is often dangerous for them and their families.

Wealthy land owners and corporations, on the other hand, have plenty of time, money, energy and power to pursue their anti-environmental agendas. Of course there are exceptions, but for the most part, trashing the environment for money is just business as usual, and who cares about the poor, except a few do-good organizations?

There may be greater income parity in wealthy democracies, and more emphasis on environmental protection. But the fact is that those countries consume a disproportionate share of the world's food and other resources, and are responsible for most of the world's environmental problems.

Most poor people (in Mexico for example) are just trying to stay alive, or sneak into the US to get a little bit of that wealth to support their families. They aren't causing big environmental problems. They're part of the environment that's being trashed.

The NOW Article describes organic agriculture as a viable answer to world hunger, and as a side benefit, reducing environmental degradation. Not by taking from the rich to give to the poor, but through empowering the poor to feed themselves, and become economically self sufficient. It's a cheap, simple, and local alternative to the current global economic system, which favors the wealthy nations over the poor.

Voting for environmental protections might sooth our consciences, but it's just a bandaid. Are we ready to drastically change our lifestyles to eliminate global poverty and hunger?

Going vegetarian, growing our own food, eating less, driving less, consuming less, using less energy - all those activities use fewer of the world's resources, and decrease our environmental impact.

Let's give the poor back their countries, and then see how they vote.

Read EarthTalk 8.5.07 about poverty and environment (second item).