Quote:
Originally Posted by radioranger
I think the only way to approach this from a few different angles is...
|
Personally (and maybe others might) I see this as more an argument against globalisation from the US standpoint and not really an AGW thing.
Globalisation means winners and losers on both sides of the "deal". Since the 1990s it means we in the West pay less for our "stuff" because it is made in cheaper production centres elsewhere, the downside being we have "exported" those jobs.
For "them" it means more money, and perhaps other benefits like healthcare and child education. The downsides include importing our resource usage, and disposal and perhaps polution.
Whilst we might say they should choose not to have those problems, most of them would prefer that money, education and healthcare.
It is coming full circle now - a lot of stuff is moving back from the cheaper markets to the 2nd and 1st worlds because those economies are becoming more expensive and transport costs are getting higher. It is a cycle though, that will reverse.
On the positive side of globalisation, those people now working in a factory are not looking to move into an extra bit of wilderness to hunt a rare animal for food and profit.