Issue Essay 1
"Our declining environment may bring the people of the world together as no politician, philosopher, or war ever could. Environmental problems are global in scope and respect no nation's boundaries. Therefore, people are faced with the choice of unity and cooperation on the one hand or disunity and a common tragedy on the other."
Proponents of the theory that the "declining environment" of the earth should cause people to come together as one to tackle the problem, tend to apply ideas that are too partisan to be practical. While it is true that the health of the environment is on a downward trend, drastic solutions such as the coming together of the people of the world are not really the solution to the problem. Consequently, this writer would reject the given issue on the grounds that it ignores many other factors before taking a stance.
The first question to be asked is what the declining environment referred to, really is. Perhaps the statement is made with respect to reduction in forest cover on the earth, caused due to the rapid urbanization occuring in today's industrialized world. This sort of urbanization happens mainly due to one reason - the wonderful state of health care technologies today. Rapid improvements in immunization have led to a large decrease in mortality rates across the world, and consequently the population of the world has increased manifold in the past century. This has led to an increased demand for resources - and being the leeches that human beings are, these resources have to be obtained by compromising on something. This compromise is reflected by the supposed wanton reduction in natural global resources such as forestry and animals in the wild, to support human growth. But yet, this compromise is exactly that - a decision made for the greater good by judging the ill-effects of this destruction against the benefits thereof, and concluding that it is necessary even if not ideal.
It is an ostensibly wonderful idea to want to "bring the people of the world together". However, the issue presupposes that the existence of political boundaries excludes cooperation and unity. The fact, though, is that it is precisely the opposite - political and other boundaries help reinforce.
There is an added benefit to cooperation between logically distinct areas of the world. The issue implies that all environmental problems are global in nature. However, such problems too are dichotomous. Environmental problems can be both global in nature and specific to zones. A typical example is the contrast between the problem of global warming and the increasingly large ozone hole that is propagating itself above the Australian continent. One problem - the former - is very much a global problem, and requires cooperation and strict and uniform environmental laws across the world to generate a solution. On the other hand, the problem of Australia's ozone hole is largely irrelevant to the rest of the world. If it were considered in global terms, it would be considered an acceptable risk not requiring urgent solutions. However, to Australia as a distinct entity, this problem far outweighs the more detached problem of global warming. Australia would be far better served if they tackled the problem themselves.
The point, of course, is that problems cannot be thoughtlessly classified as global in nature - other factors need necessarily to be considered before the best possible solution is found. The concept of globalism and the concept of distinct entities such as countries do not preclude the existence of unity - both these ideas just act as solutions to problems on larger scales. Unity between countries is required to tackle global level problems; countries themselves must exist to solve local problems.
Countries have an additional responsibility besides being a government that tackles endemic problems - they also provide an identity and a sense of patriotism to their citizens. The effects of such a feeling cannot be disputed - if a global community does take over, one would be drowned in a sense of inadequacy arising from a lack of distinct identity - countries have the additional benefit of acting as a panacea to such problems.
The existence of nations does not automatically imply disunity and a lack of concern for global problems. A typical example of an equivalence between the two, is the European Union (EU). There are other examples of cross-country cooperation, such as the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, but the EU provides a typical example of how countries display both unity and cooperation without compromising on their local problems. While individual member countries concentrate on the well-being of their geographical zone, the EU as a whole maintains a watch on the more global problems facing it. While the Austrian authorities maintain a watch on the Alps, they yet interact with Italian and Swiss officials to see that there remains a constant and comprehensive set of laws to maintain the purity of that famous mountain range.
Such examples only serve to reiterate that, while tackling environmental problems of any scale, unity and cooperation are required. Yet, this unity does not necessarily require a *lack* of national boundaries - it instead requires understanding of the issues involved between the states involved. Thus, disunity and environmental tragedy, as the issue indicates, will not occur solely due to the federalist nature of the world - environmental and other issues are in fact better served by this very system.