Obstacle to Sustainable Development
It is proved that in places where people litter, take the environment for granted and where people do not appreciate natural resources, the atmosphere is not at all happy ((Blakely, Haley and Woodward). In 2014, the United Nations on the basis of three indicators such as life expectancy of citizens, availability of education and standard of living (poverty or affluence), calculated the index of human development in 190 countries around the world. It is not necessary to prove that the index of human development greatly depends on the ecology of the environment - in other words, to prove that people adhere to the principles of sustainable development. There is a direct relationship between poverty and the environment. After all, for the whole period of its existence, humanity has not been able to solve the two main issues: poverty and environmental condition. However, affluence, on the other hand, also affects the ecology and sustainable development of entire countries. High rates of economic growth are no guarantee of progress, making the current generation breathe polluted air in exchange for higher potential production of goods and services and a higher level of consumption. Unfortunately, the world is currently dominated by business and personal interests, rather than the value of living in an ecologically safe environment. These interests do not allow for positive change. Poverty and affluence have an equally negative impact on the overall ecological environment of the Earth, hindering sustainable development of mankind.
In order to get the full grasp of the issue, it is important to have an understanding of the definitions of poverty and affluence. Poverty men the inability of a person to meet or satisfy his/her basic needs. These include fresh drinking water, food, shelter or dwelling, education, and very importantly healthcare. Unfortunately, according to statistics, almost half of the people inhabiting the Earth are forced to live without in such conditions, when their basic need are not met (Blakely, Haley, and Woodward). Under such circumstances, people do not think about perspective or give account for their actions. On the contrary, they are focused on short-term perspective and live each day as if it is their last. Such people attempt to gain enough resources for a short-term spell of survival. In this state, people have no consideration for the environment. Rivers, Forests, fields, and even soils, are depleted and degraded (Blakely, Haley and Woodward). Humanity is witnessing numerous people with health problems caused by environmental degradation leading to premature death.
Some problems deserve immediate attention. Among them is the absence of proper sanitizing facilities. Over 1/3 of the population inhabiting our planet has no access to a normal bathroom. It is substituted by outdoor fields and streams that are contaminated. As a result, human waste, as well as animal waste contaminate the area. One such problem is a lack of access to properly sanitized facilities. Rwanda is a vivid example (Prüss-Üstün et al.). More than a third of the world’s population does not have adequate bathrooms. Mostly in Africa and Asia, They have no choice other than to use outdoor fields and streams for elimination. The result is that over a billion people are forced to intake water from sources that are unfit. Another important issue is malnutrition. People who have been unlucky to be born in, or found themselves in an environment that is poverty-stricken have low access to foodstuffs thus not receiving the required amount of nutrients to be fully fit and healthy (International Food Policy Research Institute). Many people die from an easily curable illness. Had they been able to receive normal treatment, they would have stayed alive and been able to lead a normal life. Another issue as pointed out by the World Health Organization (WHO) is respiratory problems (Blakely, Haley, and Woodward). People living in poorer areas use coal or even burn wood for warmth or cooking. An immense amount of air pollutants contaminates the air these people breathe thus leading to more severe illnesses and even suffocation. According to WHO almost seven million people die from respiratory problems annually. However, more grievous is the fact that almost two-thirds of this number are children.
If everything is clear with poverty, it gets more complicated with affluence. This phenomenon has both a positive and a negative effect on the environment and the general sustainable development of humanity. Although the positive effect has been well merited, the negative effect is by far exceeding it. Those people, who live in well-developed countries and regions of the Earth, or those countries and areas that are rapidly developing, are living in a highly consumeristic environment. This means that in order to satisfy the needs of such people, the resources are depleted at an increasingly alarming pace. Miller and Spoolman (15) claim that despite a significant difference in the population between India and the US, the difference in consuming resource by an average American is 30 times more than that of his/her counterpart from India. Further research showed that this number is by 100 times more than in the poorest countries in the world. This means that a citizen of The US has by far a larger impact on the environment than a citizen of some underdeveloped country (Myers and Kent 17).
Of course, affluence and the financial means that can be invested and are invested can serve a positive role in the sustainable future of the world. This is simply not enough. People will never even consider closing down factories because they produce too much waste products, or shutting off a Nuclear Power Plant because some malfunction may lead to another Chernobyl (1986) or Fukushima (2011) disaster. If the Japanese did manage to localize the disaster and subdue its impact (Mahaffey 374), the actions of the Soviets have led to almost unbearable results. Besides the territory made uninhabitable, high level of radiation, and the immense financial resources required for sustaining the situation and not allowing more nuclear leaks from Chernobyl, the radioactive cloud floated around the whole Earth dealing damage (Leatherbarrow 175). It is a known fact that after the Chernobyl catastrophe the number of cancer cases rapidly increased (Leatherbarrow 182).
It is true that many people are trying to reverse the impact humanity had on the planet. However, when some people take a step forward towards a cleaner environment like the projects aimed at cleaning the oceans from rubbish and plastic waste, others continue to build more factories, oil refinement plants and many other businesses that do not have a positive effect on the environment (Myers and Kent 55-56). These businesses may be relatively safe, but they do have a potential for turning things upside down and ruin the ecology and environment even further.
It must be admitted that the environment and the general ecological situation leave much more to be desired. Two contradicting factors significantly influence the attempts of humanity to reverse the environmental catastrophe and improve the wellbeing of the entire planet. “Poverty” and “Affluence” as two bi-polar concepts must be mutually eliminative; however, they have a similar effect. People who live in poverty are unable to satisfy their most basic needs and are thus forced to substitute the means of progress that wealthy people have with the means they can find in nature. Human and animal waste contaminate the area Fields, streams, whole rivers are contaminated and become unfit for normal use as a source for drinking water. Of course the sanitizing equipment available to well developed and rich countries can somewhat improve the situation, however almost a third of the world’s population has no access to a normal bathroom. The countries that are affluent have also contributed to the world’s pollution. Numerous factories and plants cough out enough smoke and pollutants, affecting the world environment. It is obvious that these businesses will not shut down. People care more about their income, forgetting that soon enough they will simply have nothing left as the Earth will simply die. In order to change something, humanity must understand and strive together towards a common goal.
Works Cited
Blakely, T., Hales, S., and Woodward, A. Poverty: Assessing the distribution of health risks by socioeconomic position at national and local levels. World Health Organization Environmental Burden of Disease Series, Vol. 10, 2004. Web. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/quantifying_ehimpacts/publications/ebd10.pdf
International Food Policy Research Institute. 2014 Global Food Policy Report. Web. Retrieved from http://www.ifpri.org/book-9464/gfpr
Leatherbarrow, Andrew. Chernobyl 01:23:40 : the incredible true story of the world's worst nuclear disaster. United States: Andrew Leatherbarrow, 2016. Print.
Mahaffey, James A. Atomic accidents: a history of nuclear meltdowns and disasters: from the Ozark Mountains to Fukushima. New York: Pegasus Books, 2015. Print.
Miller, G. T. and Spoolman, S. E. Sustaining the Earth: An Integrated Approach. Cengage Learning Inc. Copyright. 2009. Print.
Myers, Norman, and Jennifer Kent. The new consumers: the influence of affluence on the environment. Washington, D.C: Island Press, 2004. Print.
Prüss-Üstün A., Bos, R., Gore, F. and Bartram, J. Safer water, better health: costs, benefits and sustainability of interventions to protect and promote health. World Health Organization, Geneva. 2008. Web Retrieved from http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/43840/1/9789241596435_eng.pdf
UN. Human Development Report. 2015. Web. Retrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/2015_human_development_report.pdf
WHO. Chronic Respiratory Diseases. WHO. 2016. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/gard/publications/chronic_respiratory_diseases.pdf
