Disorder. Death. Confusion. These are all words that could be used to describe the beginnings of the Ebola outbreak in West Africa. With over three-thousand deaths thus far and many more infected, the disease has taken a devastating toll on the developing nations. To combat the epidemic, the U.N. Security Council organized the creation of a new cabinet—the United Nations Mission for Ebola Emergency Response. Which, as of yesterday, officially established its office in Accra, Ghana. In somewhat of a twist on the sentiment “the environment is not going to be saved by environmentalists” – it has thankfully been recognized that diseases cannot be cured by scientists alone. While organizations such as Doctors Without Borders have seen success in their efforts to combat the illness, the majority of civilian organizations do not possess the necessary resources to halt the international spread of disease on their own. And to take it a step further, especially in cases such as these, the nations themselves do not even possess the federal infrastructure necessary to control the outbreak themselves. Thus, the importance of non-governmental organizations and transnational advocacy networks is clearly shown.
Though many individuals appear to believe that a separate environmental agency established for the purpose of solving many of the world’s environmental problems is not likely to be effective, I believe instances such as this are proof that the issue only requires the correct framing in order for solutions to be met. While it is true that there are certain issues where domestic policy has the ability to result in more groundbreaking action than that of steps taken by an external body, the existence of an intergovernmental third party can help to provide many needed resources and infrastructural development to aid in lessening the costs of sustainability for developing nations. And that is not to say that current organizations such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) are ineffective. But rather, it is meant to challenge their efficacy.
Take, for example, Guinea, Sierra Leone, Senegal, Nigeria, and Liberia. All of these are not only nations in various stages of the Ebola epidemic, but also countries possessing Human Development Index ratings between 152-183 (Nigeria and Sierra Leone respectively). Which on scale of 1-187, does not aid in establishing an optimistic perspective for the United States’ Center for Disease Control, which believed that over 1.5 million individuals could be diagnosed with the disease by the first quarter of 2015 if measures to seriously respond to the issue were not soon taken. And measures were taken. The disease is an issue recognized internationally as a problem, with research being done across the globe to slow its spread. The same can be said for environmental issues, such as climate change, and ecosystem management (both issues that UNEP is attempting). The only discrepancy between the two is the sense of urgency felt for the former.
This is not to say that any measures being taken to halt the spread of a deadly disease are over-the-top or unnecessary, but rather, to suggest that we perhaps do have the tools for the creation of more effective intergovernmental environmental organizations, but, have not yet discovered the proper manner in which to use them.
Additionally, the United States’ massive weight of involvement cannot be ignored. Its presence as either a pusher or a dragger and the effects in the environmental sphere because of those instances cannot be ignored. (Climate measures, wildlife conservation, waste disposal, ecosystem management. Commercialization of the Ebola vaccine.) Past measures have been met with success largely when they have sided (or at least moved) toward the economic success of a nation, which is a vital component to recognize when attempting to incentivize relatively uninvolved nations. Thus, the question is not how much more of a risk must the aforementioned environmental issues pose, but how much more must be proven to those with the power to affect trans-domestic policy.
The efficacy of organizations cannot continue to be determined by how many factors they are able to predict, or how many conferences they are able to organize, but by the actions that they are able to take. Given the international levels of consensus about problems such as land degradation, deforestation, and carbon emissions, it should be recognized by now that solutions are not going to appear strictly through abatement, but though definite measures of replacement and revitalization. Which requires holding the unappealing hand of mitigation investment.
Within the last day, it has been confirmed that a case of Ebola has been diagnosed in Dallas, Texas. Meanwhile, testing for additional vaccines is occurring at a gruelingly slow rate. The manner in which the World Health Organization and countless scientific teams have been able to respond to the worsening outbreak-- even in the face of so many obstacles-- is the result of years of research and coordination. The same amount of development has occurred in the world of environmental science. Yet, because of coordination issues, efforts to set across-the-board regulations fail continually. So abandon that notion. Learn from mistakes. Intergovernmental organizations should not attempt to act so unilaterally when dealing with such a diverse body of issues. Economic measures-- especially strategies such as market diversification—are admittedly taxing for developed nations. However, the longer the burden of the cost is delayed, and nations choose to shrug off intensive policies in favor of alternate political gains, the more challenges will mount as conditions outside of legislative control worsen. The creation of an intergovernmental cabinet that chooses to take seriously the responsibility of meeting nations halfway in their needs (or one could say “demands”) to lessen their environmental impact is necessary in order for any significant gains to be made within the next decade. The tools are available. We should not hesitate to use them.
-
Sources:
http://news.sciencemag.org/africa/2014/09/ebola-vaccine-tests-needlessly-delayed-researchers-claim
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/09/30/cdc-confirms-first-case-ebola-diagnosed-us
http://healthmap.org/ebola/#timeline
Could/should the UNEP fill this role? And is it a question of setting up an organization or about having the money/will to do it? You seem to imply both. How so?
ReplyDeleteI believe that UNEP could fill this role only if it revitalized its current methods. I was attempting to imply that the financial strain often acts to hinder the will from carrying out what needs to be carried out, and that nations can't continue to dodge or go half-in on projects. That a more intense approach is necessary. So in that sense, having an organization that can do that is really what is essential; UNEP can potentially fill this role, but it may be necessary to establish something else if it can't provide more for the nations that are needing direct intervention.
DeleteVery interesting connecting the current response to the Ebola outbreak to other environmental dangers. Given the framing and emphasis on the Ebola cases, would issues such as climate change be better framed by emphasizing the nearer future consequences or consequences that will be more personal? The IPCC and many others predict that diseases will spread with climate change and that is always iterated when people ask "what are the effects of climate change?" But as you point out with Ebola, it will impact us directly. It also seems to be a time scale issue; Ebola is here and now, but rising sea levels are years down the road. How do you think we can push the future into the present? Is it worthy to invest in adaptation mechanisms to supplement mitigation?
ReplyDeleteStates are coordinating quickly on the issue of Ebola because it is directly impact people right now. As a society - environmentalists as well - always discuss how climate change will impact people in the future. I am sure by now people have lost their lives as well as livelihoods because of climate change. Do you think there is just a lack of education on the issue of climate change - or an issue of framing climate change? Solutions and technological advancements are the best way to hinder climate change, but to develop these solutions - I agree - that an a particular agency focused on climate change would help with coordination. The issue is obviously creating an agency to do so or having an already existing agency take on climate change. Maybe the key is to have interest groups and activists educate people on how climate change is actually harming people this very moment in history. The words - climate change - alone are too politically correct to seem harmful. When I hear "Ebola" I think about death and people dying, but when I hear "climate change" I honestly don't register it as something currently harmful. Maybe, activists need to start framing climate change in a more malicious manner.
ReplyDelete