Are Developing Countries Too Poor To Be Green ?

By: Bikal Dhungel

This Essay 'too poor to be green' was a part of an assignment I wrote for the University. I decided to post it here because this is very important in development issue and a matter that has been discussed intensely. I hope it will help the readers to think about the issue from both perspectives. 

Introduction:

What is 'Being Green' ? It can include, using clean forms of energy, recycling waste, consuming organic and local products, to some extent preferring fair trade products and other environmentally friendly behaviors.

What is 'Being Poor' ? - In this context Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and in Developed Countries context, those who earn less than 60% of average income.

Economic Growth and Environmental Protection is akin to the relation between inflation and unemployment, demonstrated by Philipps Curve (Leonard-1989,p4). The conflict between Development Economists and Environmentalists is based on either LDCs should adopt 'grow and clean-up later' (the growth pattern of developed countries) or 'leap frog to sustainability' approach avoiding environmental damage during economic growth. However, this does not mean that poor people or LDCs do not care about the environment. 'Poor are highly dependent on land and natural resources hence they have incentive to be careful environmental managers' (Alier 2005). The aim of this essay is to discuss the environmentalism of the poor in micro (personal) and macro (country) level. Hence, the research questions are, 'How are the poor effected by Green Policies?','Are the poor anti-green or too poor to be green?'. After a general discussion, I will use two countries, Germany and Nepal for a case analysis and finally conclude the essay.

Discussion:

The Millennium Development Goals (MDG) lists 8 challenges according to the order of their importance. A huge financial injection is required to fulfill these goals. This can only be achieved through economic growth sustainably. Economic Growth Models, like the Lewis Growth Model however says that the process of growth evolves from primary sector followed by secondary and manufacturing before graduating to tertiary or service sector implying the negative externality on environment. If developing countries are to follow this pattern of growth, high emission of Green House Gases (GHG) through production and industrialisation is obvious. However, the Environmental Kuznets Curve argues that as GDP rises, environmental degradation will follow and when the GDP reach a certain point, it leads to reduction in environmental damage. Empirically, there are mixed results. The contrary argument of this is the cost-effectiveness of preventive measures. LDCs are in the middle of this dilemma, either to embrace economic growth or environment. The two case studies will present the difficulties of being green in a poor and rich country in both micro and macro level.

Nepal:

Roughly 75% of Nepalese use firewood as a main source of energy especially for cooking (WHO,2010). From 1980-2010 population increased from 15 to 27 million (CBS,2011) .The major driver of this growth is that children are seen as old age insurance for parents (Nugent-1985). During the same time, over one quarter of the forest was lost (MoF,2013). Percentage of people living with less than a dollar a day and those below poverty line is respectively 20% and 25.5%. 1500 youths leave daily to Middle East for employment. Mal-nutrition remains at 20% (WB,2011) and the story goes further. These figures can be generalised to other LDCs to some extent. Need to use more farmlands is greater than the consequences of environmental disasters caused by deforestation as food is needed today whereas environmental consequences will come tomorrow. Health risks due to indoor pollution generated by firewood while cooking are being neglected based on unavailability of other forms of energy and the inability to afford if there is one, especially for the poor. Consequently, a kitchen is the largest killer in Nepal through lower respiratory infections (IMHE,2010). Health and environmental risks are known but the lack of choice leaves with no action to resolve this.

Solar Energy is gaining popularity but it is limited to rich few. The average cost of installing a 2kwh Photovoltaic costs Rupees 105,000 (approx.$1050), 1.413 times of per capita income. Comparing to the UK, it means that it would cost ~39,000 Pounds to install considering per capita income of 28,000 Pounds (IMF,2013). Concerning the wastes, they are disposed in the river due to the lack of technological know-how to recycle or manage it properly and the financial means to acquire these technologies. Most municipalities either dump wastes or put in other public places disregarding the environment or public health. Developing countries like Nepal face financial constraints to act on such issues and the alternatives. Relying on subsistence farming and animal husbandry for daily survival, Nepal is also the home of 7.2 million cattle, a major emitter of Methane. Still, it is not practical not to have cattle due to its immense importance as a major nutrients supplier and the dung which could be used as fertilizers. Other major issue is about The Green Revolution, use of genetically modified technologies and pesticides. There is no doubt that this will cause negative externalities in human health and the environment, but Green Revolution has improved the health status of 32-42 million children (Evenson,Gollin 2003) and saved the world to avoid the disaster predicted by Malthus. As the 'Essay on the principle of Population' mentions, population growth is a serious issue, particularly in LDCs where most growth is centered but the dilemma of 'old-age security' makes it harder to stop this.

Germany:

The German government has decided to shut down all nuclear power plants by 2022. Massive investments are being made in renewable energies. However, this is not without problems. The electricity bills are increasing and the term 'Energy Poverty' has come into existence. A report by Federal Network Agency (2013) mentions that electricity was cut in over 300,000 households due to unpaid bills and 'millions' are facing difficulties to pay. Another study by the Center of German Economic Research claims that the poor pay over-proportionally for energy transition than the rich. The poorest 10% of the population would pay 1.3% of their income whereas the richest 10% only bear 0.2%. Moreover, big companies with strong lobby were also successful in getting exemption from the increased energy costs due to the competition they face internationally, whereas the small ones could not.

The poor also eat unhealthy and cheap fast foods that were produced causing more GHG than organic foods. The financial scarcity limits their choice.

So, from here it could be concluded that poor in both rich and poor countries are facing difficulties to go green or to be green consumers and the term 'too poor to be green' (Martinez-Alier,1995) to some extent is true. However, are the poor anti-green, how is their willingness to be green? Evidences give mixed picture. Martinada et al found that the Willingness To Pay (WTP) for legally logged woods are higher than illegal among the poor in Guatemala. Owusu and Anifori (2013) found that WTP for organic fruits and vegetables are higher in Kumasi, Ghana. Valerien et al found that 78% of consumers had WTP more for organic and environmentally friendly products. In a 41 country survey, Dorsch (2011) found that there is a wide support for environmental protection. Yang et al (2012) finds that the Chinese customers have in average 22% more WTP for Fair Trade products. However, Ivanova and Tranter finds that, in a 27 high income country data, support for environmental protection has decreased from 1993 to 2000. Comparing other issues with environment, a survey conducted by ISSP from 1993 to 2010 in 33 countries shows that environment is of minor importance in comparison to Economy, Health and Education. Only 4.7% of the respondents mention Environment as the most important issue.

Conclusion

The case study of Nepal shows the reason why it is difficult for poor countries to go green. No doubt that protecting environment is necessary, but preventing human death and suffering due to poverty should be prioritized. Problems of developing countries, namely ending mal-nutrition, reducing the prevalence of diseases, universal education and healthcare, infrastructures can only be realised by economic growth. Without old-age security mechanisms, poor will continue having more children putting more pressure on agriculture, food supply and environment. Without the availability of suitable technology, poor will continue using firewood. Without waste management system or recycling technology, poor will continue dumping wastes in the river. Without better ways to sustain, poor will continue keeping the cattle. There is no evidence that any country that achieved economic prosperity without causing any harm to the environment. At the same time, Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis has been proved in many countries. The case study of Germany was presented to show that even poor in developed countries are facing difficulties to go green. However, many things could be done in personal level by behavioral change for example switching off the lights when nobody is in the room, using cycle instead of cars if possible, using energy efficient light bulbs etc. Finally, evidences show that poor are not less willing to go green. Poor do care about the environment. When there is technology transfer, financial ability, infrastructure, poor are also green but the problem they are facing today is not due to their choice rather due to the lack of choice.

So, a recommendation for a country like Germany can be that the poor get more support from the authorities concerning the use of green energy and get financial support. Focus should be on behavioral changes in terms of food choices and a progressive cost bearing scheme would be socially just. For a country like Nepal, focus should be on building micro hydro power plants in rural areas and better management of waste disposal in the cities and education in behavioral changes. In both countries, going green can have a high initial cost but the long term effect of this is positive. So, choices have to be made how they can address this issue and convince the people to play their role as well.