When scientists started to talk about the environmental degradation and the pollution, the politicians did not pay attention and the economists preferred to allocate budgets to more growth not for sustainable development.
That was a model of conflict between the Biosphere and the Technosphere.
The politicians took advantage of the conflict and promised the environmental activists to take action just to have their votes.
After it was evident that climate changes affect health and resources, and the pollution related diseases affected many people the authorities around the world put plans to deal with the pollution, however budgets were always not enough.
From the beginning economists neglected the pollution cost that is a long term impact as they preferred to achieve growth on short term periods.
That created a state of contradiction between the long term objectives and the short term plans that should serve the long term strategies.
Most strikingly, few biologists and doctors were invited to share in devising plans.
Many plans lacked the proper technicality and some objectives were unreasonable like zero pollution.
When Britain in the sixties of the last century faced the heavy air pollution and fogs in London due to heavy traffic the state there applied the best available solution and not the zero emission.
While all future studies and mathematical models that environmentalists used to forecast the climate changes showed that the target of decreasing the mean atmospheric temperature by 1.5 degrees will not be achieved, there is no trials to revise plans or to allocate more resources to achieve the target albeit that budgets are not enough to deal with the situation now.
That was another conflict as the objectives lacked proper allocation of budgets. That is another strategic failure due to unrealistic objectives.
There was an agreement about the global long term strategies despite the fact that it will not work, however the short term regional strategies contradicts with the main objectives and that was the main cause for environmental strategic failure.
The poor countries want to focus on food and water scarcity, diseases due to infection and desertification.
The big polluters who called for zero emission turned to use coal after the Russian-Ukraine conflict instead of spending more on green hydrogen projects in Europe.
The advanced north used double standard policies of human rights, environment and the production quality to punish some countries and prevent transfer of technology and boycotted the goods that these countries produce.
One of the basic human rights is the biological needs of people like food, water and health however that was neglected by advanced countries.
While the north invented methods for waste recycling they did not provided the know-how to the south.
Another thing is that global forces created chaos in poor countries to control resources and even some use the terrorism.
Until the rich north and the global forces are sincere to help the south and to stop considering their diseases and lives priceless the poor will suffer more.
The world should devise a package of strategies and policies for the environment, health, food and water considering the differences between different regions.
While zero emission could be applied in an area, the best available solutions should be applied in another areas. And who ruined the environment should participate and allocate more budgets for the reform.
The conclusion:
Despite many conferences that were held in the past and nearly most problems were thoroughly discussed the strategies for the environment do not work due to contradicting objectives and plans between the short and long term strategies.
Those who ruined the environment should be sincere in reform and have to stop the double standard policies.
The environment, health, food and water problems should be dealt with as a package of strategies and policies.
-
-
