Nearly two hundred and fifty years of historical and scientific data supports the notion that industrialization is largely responsible for the significant, life-threatening changes in the earth’s average temperature known as global warming.  If changes to existing international political-economic policies that determine fossil fuel emission levels are not forthcoming, civilization will succumb to an unprecedented environmental catastrophe.  Therefore, it can be argued that the decision by undeveloped nations to industrialize in the twenty-first century, as compared to that same decision in the eighteenth century, is unethical because it is detrimental to all forms of life.  In order to exemplify the political-economic affects of industrialization, this paper will briefly summarize the significant historical events that contributed to the industrialization process in America (representing developed nations) and China (representing undeveloped nations).  Subsequently, by comparing the political-economic policies of China to those of the United States, this essay will demonstrate the unlikelihood that undeveloped nations will cease to industrialize because the potential for political and economic gain is far too lucrative.  Finally, after demonstrating the existence of a parallel relationship between industrialization and global warming, this paper will test the results of that relationship against the deontology of eighteenth century Western philosopher Immanuel Kant, thus arguing that industrialization is unethical because its associated environmental, social, and cultural ramifications are inconsistent with the basic requirements of human life.

Capitalism, communism, and economism share the assumption that industrialism benefits civilization.[1]  Indeed, industrialization strengthened both Britain’s (1750 to 1914) and America’s (after 1914) ability to develop, transport, and sell new products at unprecedented levels of speed and efficiency, thus establishing their technological, economic, and military superiority during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries respectively.  The period immediately proceeding World War I marks the beginning of America’s industrial-economic strength.  Fear of economic warfare, combined with the cost of the war, which amounted to nearly $260 billion, or roughly, “six and a half times the sum” (Lamborn, 292) of the worlds accumulated nation debt for approximately one hundred years, led to the elimination of the gold standard: an international monetary system in which the national currencies used in interstate transactions are backed by a promise to redeem them in gold on demand. In order to cover wartime costs many European governments abandoned their laissez-fare economic policies, (which are best characterized as policies that call for governmental nonintervention in the economy, except for the essential minimum required to protect national security, and establish legal bases for free exchange) and adopted state controlled methods over societies resources.[2]  Consequently, European debt increased as its industrial output dropped twenty three percent between 1913 and 1920.[3]  In particular, Britain’s unemployment rate dropped twenty three percent after its exports fell over fifty percent between 1920 and 1921.  Conversely, the United States, which had owed three billion dollars to foreign creditors before World War I, was transformed to the worlds largest creditor after its industrial output increased forty eight percent, thereby making the dollar the key international currency, and supporting that fact that industrialization is lucrative because it results in a powerful economy.

During that same period, (post World War I) tremendous strain on the German economy peaked when the French, seeking reparation from Germany for its wartime abuses, invaded Germany’s Ruhr valley in 1923.  In retaliation, the German workers went on strike, which ultimately resulted in hyperinflation that resulted in an exchange rate of 4.2 trillion German marks to the dollar, consequently wiping out the life savings of most Germans.  From an international gold-standard perceptive, the effects of the war on the German government, as indicated by this chart, indicates that the amount to purchase one ounce of gold skyrocketed from 170 marks in January 1919, to eighty seven trillion German marks by November 30, 1923, thus indicating a complete economic collapse.  Fearing that sustained pressure from the French may cause the German government to seek financial assistance from the Soviets, the United States pressured France for repayment of their war debt as a means of reducing their hostilities towards the German people.  However, because the French were unable to raise sufficient capital, an international conference, known as the Dawes Plan of 1924, was held to address the international problems of war debt.  That conference resulted in a $200 million loan to assist Germany with its reparations, and an agreement from France to cut Germany’s wartime obligation in half, thus demonstrating that industrialization, which in this case contributed to America’s economic power, is lucrative because of its ability to establish international political authority.

After the stock market crash in October 1929, U.S. banks called in its international loans, and stopped offering new lines of credit.  Consequently, because the U.S. dollar was the main international currency, many countries were stripped of their dollars, including Germany, which accordingly announced that it could no longer pay its reparations, which in turn caused Britain and France to halt their payments to the United States.  Those previously mentioned events, combined with the Smoot-Hawley tariff (an increase in U.S. import taxes on over 20,000 items, caused a sixty-nine percent drop in U.S. exports, and a fifty percent drop in worldwide trade by 1932), collectively contributed to the Great Depression (the global economic contraction of GDP that began in 1929, bottomed in 1933, and technically ended after World War II when global GDP surpassed its 1929 peak).[4] The U.S. Reciprocal Trade Act in 1934 eventually reduced those tariffs by fifty percent, and by 1936, the Tripartite Agreement, an agreement by Britain, France, and the United States to collaboratively reestablish currency convertibility, was signed under the assumption that a stable currency would foster social and financial problems.  However, according to British economist John Maynard Keynes, new currency convertibility policies would not sufficiently ease the doubts of capitalisms long-term feasibility that had developed from the Great Depression because there were no self-correcting mechanisms in place that would lift an economy out of a prolonged economic depression.  Keynes, also known as the ‘savior of capitalism,’ argued that the individual consumer could not be the cause the depressions ensuing social and financial problems because they had virtually no buying power as compared to large corporations and governmental agencies.[5]  Instead, Keynesian economic theory puts for the notion that the true cause of economic boom and depression results from conservative economic policies; therefore, in addition to policies that promote a stable currency, governmental and business policies must be examined in order to achieve a positive, long-term resolution.  In his essay, ‘National Self-Sufficiency’ Keynes argued that, “finance [should] be primarily national,” (Lamborn, 2003, p.362) thus insinuating that financial flows between states would likely interfere with the national management of the economy: a critical during the Great Depression and World War II.  Therefore, in order to establish and maintain an economic system that would foster social and financial problems, which comprises two-thirds of the requirements for sustainability, (defined on pg. 14 of this report) both a stable currency and increased governmental involvement were required because the economy would not automatically gravitate towards full employment if the government would simply leave it alone.[6]

Keynes’ economic theories, though somewhat controversial at the time, were highly influential between the end of World War I and the beginning of World War II, a period best characterized by the development of the Bretton Woods monetary system: a plan designed to create a fixed-exchange rate, gold standard system that would promote economic growth and trade though the establishment of a stable currency system.  The Bretton Woods System established a sophisticated international monetary system (see chart at left) that included the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and several other important regional, national, and international systems.  It permitted states to impose controls on the movement of assets that were not directly used to finance current transactions.  Accordingly, the U.S. agreed to buy or sell gold in order to maintain the $35 per ounce level established by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1933.  In turn, other nations, most of which had little or no gold, agreed to buy and sell dollars in order to maintain that exchange rate, thereby creating a relationship between the U.S. dollar and gold.[7]  Subsequently, the value of each nations currency was fixed to the price of gold, which was set by the U.S., thus exemplifying the lucratively of industrialization, which in this case established the U.S. dollar as the main international currency.

Notwithstanding the above-mentioned international benefits of the Bretton Woods monetary system, the U.S. was the only nation that could not devalue its currency, if necessary, because the value of the dollar was fixed in terms of gold that was set by the U.S. government.  Therefore, the only way exchange rates between the dollar and foreign currencies could change was if surplus nations revalued their currencies upward relative to the dollar.  However, because those nations were not motivated to revalue their currencies, the dollar became overvalued and resulted in a balance of payments deficit, thus destroying the Bretton Woods system soon after President Richard Nixon took the dollar off the gold standard in 1971.

Although the Bretton Woods system became synonymous with, “fundamental disequilibrium,” (Baumol and Blinder, 2000, p.724) or, a chronic deficit in the balance of payments, during its tenure it symbolized America’s commitment and ability to become actively involved in managing the global political economy, and denotes Europe’s recognition that it was no longer able to sustain a purely Eurocentric system.  Despite that fact, however, the Bretton Woods system was incompatible with the Soviet’s command economy (a system whereby economic decisions, such as the type, pricing, and allocation of goods and services produced, are determined by centralized planners), and eventually non-market economies, such as China and other communist countries, became more isolated from the international political economic arena.  Moreover, after World War II Marxism played a major role in shaping the relationships between the West and the Third World, and unlike the Soviet Union, post-colonial societies were economically tied to the West.  Consequently, China and other Third World countries became suspicious of a political economic system that they otherwise associated with colonialism and exploitation, and instead of adopting Western political economic theories, they gravitated towards socialism.

At approximately the same time America was experiencing the above-mentioned economic reforms that ultimately transformed it into a fully industrialized nation, China was struggling with its own serious cultural and social issues that ultimately led to fall of the Qing dynasty in 1911, consequently ending several thousand years of dynastical rule.[8]  Warlords, rouge generals, and revolutionaries that attempted to gain control of China and establish a new dynasty characterized its political environment between 1911 and 1948.  The collapse of the Chinese economy in 1948, combined with defeat of the KMT (Kuomintang, or Nationalist Party of China) and its leader Chiang Kai-shek by Mao Zedong and his communist armies resulted in the systematic takeover of China, and the establishment of the Chinese Communist Party (hereafter CCP) on October 1, 1949.[9]  By the early 1950’s, communism flourished under Mao’s control, and for the first time in decades, China was experiencing peace rather than war, thus duping the peasants into believing that socialism was a viable philosophy, and that Mao was a great leader.  Although the five subsequent years proved successful for the Chinese economy and its farmers, harsh CCP land reformation policies resulted in the death of nearly one million landowners, and by 1956, the ensuing cultural and social problems inspired Mao to launch the Hundred Flowers Movement, a policy originally designed to encourage Chinese farmers to openly discuss their grievances.[10]  However, the large number of people that lodged complaints was unexpected, and Mao responded by initiating the Anti-Rightist Campaign in 1957, which resulted in the imprisonment or suicide of approximately four hundred thousand Chinese, thus demonstrating communisms austerity.[11]

Following the above-mentioned cultural and social ramifications of the Anti-Rightist Campaign, a group known as the Reds (an assemblage led by Mao that promoted fast, radical change, and believed in revolution simply for the sake of revolution) embarked on a campaign that was designed to compete with Soviet industrial output, which averaged 8.6% between 1956-1959.[12]  Known as the Great Leap Forward, its intent was to reorganize China’s agricultural system and consequently increase its gross domestic product (GDP).[13]  However, improper agricultural techniques caused a twenty-five percent drop in crop output, thus resulting in one of the largest man-made famines in world history, and the death of nearly thirty million Chinese.[14]  (see population chart at right ) In response to that disaster the Experts, (a group headed by defense minister Peng Dehuai that promoted gradual change, and did not necessarily believe in perpetual rebellion) reprimanded Mao for pushing the Chinese people too hard.[15]  Although the Reds and the Experts both agreed that communism was obtainable only through revolution, the Experts adopted a more humane approach by suggesting that the steps necessary to fully implement communism would naturally take longer because of inherent physical, material, and psychological human weaknesses that require attention as they emerge.  By contrast, Mao believed that communism could only be achieved through continuous radical change, albeit human weaknesses; consequently, individuals that under-performed were deemed counter revolutionary.[16]  Ultimately, millions of Chinese peasants found the Experts fiscal policies more attractive because they called for moderate economic laws, property ownership, and the right to sell their products.[17]  Those policies, though unpopular with the Reds because they violated CCP guidelines, share certain Western principles such as a respect for human rights, and the right to own property.

It might be argued that just because the Experts version of socialism permitted peasants to own some land and sell some produce, that it is illogical to compare it with the entrepreneurial opportunities that characterize the free trade environment of democratic cultures.  However, as compared to the Reds philosophy, which advocated governmental control over the land and the economy, the Experts philosophies are more consistent with the Western-style laissez-faire economic system as evidenced by the fact that it ultimately empowered the Chinese peasants to become self-sufficient.  Laissez-faire, an economic policy developed by Adam Smith during the Enlightenment (a philosophical movement of the eighteenth century characterized by the use of reason to scrutinize previously accepted doctrines and tradition, consequently invoking humanitarian reform), argues that economic advancement is best achieved through government non-intervention because individual behavior is controlled by self-interest, however, through competition it promotes general economic welfare.[18]  The Chinese people’s preference for the Experts economic policies over the Reds signifies a fundamental change in their socio-economic behavior that is, in many ways, consistent with the behavioral concepts put forth by Smith’s laissez-faire policies, thus demonstrating that the democratic policies normally associated with autonomy and free trade are preferred over the limiting concepts put forth by communism.

 

Notwithstanding the above-mentioned preferences of the Chinese people, the positive socio-economic effects of the Experts economic policies were offset by Mao’s decision to take control of the country, and in typical fascist style, revert the existing political power back to pre-1954 conditions.  Convinced that hidden enemies within the CCP needed to be identified and removed, Mao proceeded by denouncing the mayor of Beijing in 1966 following a theatrical play that criticized his leadership.[19]  Subsequently, radical students from Beijing University, eager to assist Mao in his quest to oust revisionists that were,  “taking the capitalist road” (Ebrey, 2003, p.314) joined Mao’s wife, Jiang Qing, to form the Cultural Revolution Small Group.  As the movement grew, rallies in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square attracted over eight million young people from every part of China to eventually form the Red Guards.  Displaying their little red books, Quotations from Chairman Mao, they roamed the streets seeking anything that was foreign made or old, with the intention of breaking into the homes of teachers, foreigners and lower class individuals, and destroying old books, art, or genealogies in an attempt to disconnect themselves from their pasts.  When workers joined the radical students in November 1966, CCP leaders tried to appease them by raising wages and handing out bonuses, however, Mao, “responded to this economism” (Ebrey, 2003, p.315) by instructing students and workers to seize power from corrupt revisionist party leaders.  As the conflict escalated, groups challenged other groups for power, and Mao was left with no choice but to utilize the Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) to restore order.  Upon receiving conflicting orders by Mao to help leftist groups seize power, while simultaneously ensuring that, “industrial and agricultural production continued,” (Ebrey, 2003, p. 316) the PLA responded by provoking the most violent stage of the Cultural Revolution, and by 1968 the Red Guards were defeated and sent off to work in China’s agricultural areas, thus illustrating Mao’s failure to invoke change.

The Cultural Revolution prevented citizens from composing music or poetry, thereby representing lost opportunities for future generations to learn about it through the eyes of those that lived it.[20]  Survivors of the Cultural Revolution, such as Liang Heng, feared persecution by the Red Guards, which fostered a need among the Chinese to develop, “self protection in modern society.”  (Heng and Shapiro, 1984, p.66)  Like most Chinese during that period, Leng witnessed the search raids that were orchestrated to find and destroy, “pre-Liberation Reactionary artworks, gold, jade, silver, jewelry” (Heng et al., 1984, p.66) and other objects that were deemed, “the trappings of Feudalism-Capitalism-Revisionism.”  (Heng et al., 1984, p.66)  Simply put, and quite ironically, the Cultural Revolution, whose main slogan was, “it is better to be poor under socialism than rich under capitalism,” (Ebrey, 2003, p.322) caused the death of a culture.  As a result, Mao’s campaign eventually failed because, as demonstrated above, when given a choice, the Chinese people preferred the democratic policies normally associated with capitalism, rather than the limiting concepts put forth by communism.  It can therefore be argued that when any government attempts to control its citizens, it violates the concepts of natural law, which asserts that humanity shares certain beliefs that are fundamental to the existence of humankind, and violating those laws by any means is detrimental to basic human nature.

Externally, China’s main concern during the Cultural Revolution was Soviet invasion.  Internally, Mao’s policies resulted in China’s isolation from Western nations that lasted until Zhou Enlai, the leader of the moderate faction, arranged for U.S. President Richard Nixon to visit China in 1972.[21]  Nixon’s well-known reputation as an uncompromising opponent of communism was scrutinized by Western nations when he made his unannounced visit to China and met with top CCP leaders.  Nixon’s intent was to increase diplomatic relations between the United States and China, thus imposing political pressure on the Soviets by creating the appearance that China was collaborating with the West.  Nixon’s trip resulted in a significant political win for his career, a coup for United States diplomacy, and perhaps most importantly, an opportunity for China to reestablish its position in international politics.  With China’s newfound place in international politics, Western corporations were, for the first time, able to sell their products to its enormous, untapped market.  For example, “In 1979, China had no McDonald’s,” (Friedman, 2000, p.258) which, by many Western standards, oddly enough signifies modernity.  Today, however, Western influence in China is apparent, as represented, in part, by the presence of, “200 McDonald’s” (Friedman, 2000, p.258) including one in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square.  Additionally, before Nixon’s visit, neither Western-style electronic devices nor fashion were available to the Chinese people; however, twenty first century China has seen the, “explosion of DVD players all over China in the late 1990’s,” (Friedman, 2000, p.62) and, “teenage girls in go-go boots.”  (Friedman, 2000, p.291)  The result of Western influence represents a turning point in China’s history from an antiquated, non-industrialized country, to one that embraced the political-economic benefits of industrialization and globalization (the increasing integration of national economies, technologies, and cultures, and the declining meaningfulness of state boundaries).

In order to benefit from the economic advantages of globalization, and find acceptance within the realm of the international political arena, a nation must embrace the egalitarian concepts of economic transparency, which is characterized by open economic policymaking, and the dissemination of economic data and financial developments that promote an orderly and efficient financial market that increases the accountability of policymakers and free trade.[22]  Nevertheless, the discrepancies between the Reds and the Experts divided the CCP, and although the Chinese people adopted the Experts fiscal policies, China found it difficult to fully establish itself globally until Nixon’s visit.  Before Nixon’s visit, China did not have UN membership because it was deemed an evil, totalitarian dictatorship that was interested in world domination.  After his visit, Nixon recognized China’s potential and sought to reestablish its position in world politics.  However, the fact that Nixon recognized Chinas potential largely depended on the Reds success or failure in accomplishing their continuous revolution.  For example, if they had been successful, Chinas industrial output would have decreased similarly to that of the Soviet’s, which decelerated from 8.6 percent in 1956-59 to 6.7 percent in 1960-63, thereby rendering it an unattractive target for American capitalism or involvement in international politics.[23]  Instead, the Experts economic policies gave the Chinese people a taste of capitalism, reduced the cultural gap between them and the Americans, and enhanced their image worldwide.  In addition, China’s weak economy, which dropped from 19.4 percent in 1970 to 3.8 percent in 1972, presented labor opportunities for American corporations that consequently tapped its enormous, assiduous population, thus establishing a synergistic relationship between China and the United States.[24]  However, that relationship might not have existed if the Reds policies had been more effective because capitalism, even at its most meager stage, is diametrically opposed to communism, and because of that inconsistency, it is rational to suggest that the Nixon administration would have found little interest in establishing economic relationships with the Chinese people.

Since Nixon’s visit, China has acknowledged that many of its political and economic polices were inconsistent with the requirements of globalization and economic transparency.  However, despite that discrepancy, China’s GDP increased 41.6% in 1990 and increased annually until 2003 when it increased 52.3%, industrialization accounting for 54% of that cumulative increase, thus exemplifying the tremendous effects that the industrialization process holds on newly industrializing countries (hereafter NIC’s), even those that do not completely conform to Western standards.[25]

In order to understand the effects of industrialization on the Earth’s environment, the above-mentioned history of the United States and China is important because, just as Keynes suggested that governmental and business policies must be examined in order achieve positive, long-term economic results, the same is true vis-à-vis the creation of international laws that are needed to maintain a sustainable environment.  A sustainable environment is characterized by economic, social, and environmental conditions that must be maintained in order for the Earth to remain habitable and prosperous.[26]  The invention of the steam engine by James Watt in 1770 marks the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, and a new era in world history.[27]  A primary goal of industrialization is increased agricultural production.  The chart below indicates the agricultural overlap that exists in a sustainable environment, and the synergistic relationship that exists between social, economic, environmental, and sustainable agriculture.

A key by-product of the Industrial Revolution, one that directly conflicts with the requirements of sustainability, (and sustainable agriculture) is the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal and oil, because it increases carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and other gases, collectively known as greenhouse gases, in the atmosphere to dangerously high levels.[28]  In fact, since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution all industrialized nations have contributed to the increase in CO2 to various degrees.  As the Vostok chart, (a 400,000 year measurement of gases trapped in ice cores that were extracted from Antarctica) below indicates, the global CO2 level has increased to an unprecedented 380 ppm (parts-per-million), whereas before the Industrial Revolution, the amount of CO2 had never exceeded 280 ppm in the last four hundred thousand years.[29]  Simply put, environmental scientists have concluded that the rise in the Earth’s temperature, which has already risen by 0.6° C since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, is caused by human activity, and because an increase of only, “2° C would almost certainly mean massive suffering and destruction,” (Athanasiou et al., 2002, p.15) Earth will experience unparalleled devastation by 2030 if changes are not imminent.  In fact, projections indicate that by 2030 the annual increase in global temperature will drastically increase worldwide tropical diseases, reduce fresh water supplies, melt tropical glaciers, and significantly reduced agriculture output, thereby causing epidemics, coastal flooding, massive property damage, serious economic strife, and the extinction of many forms of life.[30]  Those tragic events will correspond to a drastic population increase (see chart at left) that is expected to swell to over ten billion by 2030, thus resulting in worldwide famine, death, and human suffering of biblical proportions.  In addition, China, Africa, India, and Indonesia will bear the bulk of the pain and suffering because the greatest population increases is expected in those regions.[31]  Adding to that population crisis is the fact that global warming will drastically decrease rainfall in those regions, which will ultimately lead to decreased agricultural output, and reduced levels of fresh water, thereby increasing the potential for drought, famine, disease, and death.  Therefore, in China, despite the fact that modern engineering methodologies permit more efficient use of coal, which under normal circumstances would reduce its air pollution, the above-mentioned consequences of global warming will be most serious because, “total energy use and…total emissions have both continued to rise” (Athanasiou et al., 2002, p.69) in response to its rapid economic and population growth. Notwithstanding the fact that developed nations (such as Europe and the United States) are to blame for global warming, as evidenced by nearly two hundred and fifty years of industrialization, (see Atmospheric CO2 variations chart at left) precipitation in those regions will actually increase, thus producing enhanced agricultural output and fresh water supply, which in turn will increase its GDP.  Ironically, the areas that are most at risk (non-industrialized counties such as China, Africa, India, and Indonesia) have contributed the least to the CO2 increase: hence, the main political-economic question: who (Western or non-Western nations) should change their political policies to repair the global warming crisis that was caused by the Industrial Revolution, and who should pay for it.

Because developed nations burn more fossil fuels than all other nations combined, as evidenced by their individual CO2 emissions (see Top 20 chart below), it is both appropriate and logical that those, “atmospheric overuses” (Athanasiou and Bear, 2002, p.11) would change their political policies in favor of fossil fuel restrictions, and provide whatever economic support is necessary to maintain a sustainable environment.  In fact, because of its enormous wealth, technological capabilities, and perhaps most importantly because it is the largest consumer of fossil fuels, many undeveloped nations, such as China, expect the United States to initiate a, “soft landing” (Athanasiou et al., 2002, p.116), or precautionary global transition in which we avoid catastrophic climate change.  However, despite those facts, in 2001 the Bush administration declared that the United States would not ratify the Kyoto protocol, an amendment to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) that called for a reduction of CO2 and five other greenhouse gasses, because, “it is not in the United States’ economic best interest.”  (Athanasiou et al., 2002, p.116)  Instead the U.S. government inappropriately called for a climate treaty that included, “caps on developing-world emissions,” (Athanasiou et al., 2002, p.19) arguing that Kyoto would, “penalize its own signatories.”  (Athanasiou et al., 2002. p.19)  In the meantime, the Bush administration, also known to environmental scientists as the, “fossil-fuel cartel,” (Athanasiou et al., 2002, p.15) believes that new technologies, most of which have yet to be defined or discovered, will ultimately prevail in solving the looming environmental crisis.  However, even if new technologies were forthcoming, they would not sufficiently prevent the devastating climate shifts that the world will experience within the next twenty-five years because in order to remain consistent with the requirements of a sustainable environment the, “total global greenhouse gas emissions must soon drop to 60 to 80 percent below their 1990 levels.”  (Athanasiou et al., 2002, p.15)

Notwithstanding the warnings put forth by the environmental protection community, Western governments and private businesses continue to manufacture products in a manner that is contradictory to sustainability, thereby raising serious questions about the ethical nature of the industrialization process.[32]  While the United States has dismissed the Kyoto protocol, other, “big poor countries” (Athanasiou et al., 2002, p.19) such as China, Indonesia, Brazil, and India, have insinuated that they are unwilling to accept a future that will forever regulate them to paths of poverty and political insignificance.  In fact, “Beijing and Delhi …have long insisted that the first move belongs to the North”  (Athanasiou et al., 2002, p.20) because the industrial revolution was powered by coal and oil, and because the West produced the, “bulk of the gases that today feeds chains of storms, floods, heat waves, and droughts around the world.”  (Athanasiou et al., 2002, p.20)  In fact, Western nations produce more metric tons of CO2 per person than undeveloped nations, (see chart at right) therefore, there is no compelling reason for undeveloped nations to alter their policies in order to clean-up the environment.  Moreover, because the economic and military strength of non-Western nations typically lags that of fully industrialized Western nations, many undeveloped nations might be willing to risk the aforementioned ramifications of industrialization in exchange for its positive short-term benefits.  For example, in 1978, six years after Nixon’s visit, China moved from an inefficient, Soviet-style centrally planned economy, to a market-oriented system that increased local authority for industrial managers; opened the door to small-scale enterprises in services and light manufacturing; and increased foreign trade and investment, thus representing a fundamental change that was initially inspired by the Experts economic policies during the Cultural Revolution.[33]  As a result, China’s GDP has quadrupled since 1978, and by 2003 it was ranked as the second largest world economy after the United States.[34]  However, as compared to America’s per capita GDP of $37,800, China is poor, with a per capita GDP of $5,000, thereby supporting the argument that because the Chinese people are comparatively poor, they might be persuaded to abandon their ethical responsibility towards the environment in order to narrow the rich-poor gap.

That is not to suggest that the Chinese people, or any other group, are necessarily unethical.  In fact, since the 6th century A.D. China’s primary religion, Buddhism, a religion that promotes harmony, a peaceful mind, sharing, and compassion, and indicates that life is permeated with suffering caused by desire, encourages people to behave, to be honest, and to be responsible.[35]  In other words, Buddhists generally respect nature, and it is therefore doubtful that they would consciously choose to forgo nature’s gifts for capitalisms worst feature: materialism, the belief that reality can only be obtained through physical matter, and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, are unimportant.  Nevertheless, the when Nixon visited China, the Western door opened to the Chinese people for the first time, consequently exposing them to Western products, which are normally associated with materialism and greed.  On the one hand, Nixon’s visit was necessary to save China from the Reds version of communism, on the other hand, it succumbed the Chinese people to the elements of capitalism.  Unfortunately for China and the rest of the undeveloped world, the United States government is unwilling to accept its ethical responsibilities regarding the environment because corporate profits would suffer.  Currently, the United States is the world’s only superpower, and despite the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, its economy displayed incredible resiliency (see chart top right) by making a moderate recovery in 2002 with a 2.4% increase in overall GDP.  Although China’s economy has displayed incredible gains since 1978, (see chart bottom left) its economy is less resilient than Americas, partly because its economic policies are inconsistent with the aforesaid requirements of economic transparency, which consequently reduces the level of trust between them and Western corporations that stumble on those financial inconsistencies.  Notwithstanding the moral ideologies of Buddhism, or the aforesaid dangers of industrialism, the Chinese people are unlikely to forfeit the benefits of industrialization because their exposure to capitalism, combined with their comparatively low per capita GDP is sufficient reason to continue with their aggressive industrialization plans.

To better understand why the decision to industrialize in the twenty-first century, as compared to that same decision in the eighteenth century, is unethical, it is important to evaluate the above-mentioned history of industrialization, particularly as it relates to climate-change, because international political-economic policies, such as those that determine fossil fuel emissions, typically develop in direct response to those historical developments.  The invention of the steam engine by James Watt in 1770 marks the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in England, and a new era of modernization in world history.[36]  In the mid-eighteenth century, scientific knowledge of climate change was virtually non-existent, and scientists had never considered the possibility that building factories, which were originally intended to produce products that would improve the quality of life, could alter the weather.  In fact, the thought that human activity could change the environment did not occur until 1827 when French scientist Jean Fourier hypothesized that something had been causing the Earth’s temperature to increase.  Fourier invented the term ‘greenhouse effect’, which explains how sunlight enters the Earth’s atmosphere, but is then trapped and left unable to escape.[37]  In 1860, as industrialism spread thought the world, British scientist John Tyndal identified CO2 and water vapor as the heat trapping gases that Fourier was unable to identify.[38]  In 1896, Swedish scientist Svante Arrenhius calculated that the increased CO2 that was produced by industrial plants would increase the Earth temperature, and he projected that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would raise the average global temperature by 10 degree Fahrenheit.[39]  However, despite those findings, scientists did not make the connection between climate change and environmental catastrophe until the twentieth century.  Based on that data, it can be argued that eighteenth century leaders were unaware of the serious and irreversible long-term consequences of industrialization; therefore, it is not logical to suggest that their decision to industrialize was unethical.

Since Arrenhius’ discovery, however, overwhelming scientific data supports the notion that a buildup of atmospheric CO2, which typically lags industrial activity by approximately fifty years, is by caused human activity, and is responsible for global warming.  For instance, in 1958, David Keeling became the first scientist to accurately measure the increased CO2 levels; as the chart on the right indicates, CO2 levels have been increasing steadily since Keeling first began his study, and perhaps more importantly, the measurements Keeling recorded in 1958 were displaying the effects of industrialization fifty years earlier, in 1908, thus indicating that current CO2 levels are measuring the effects of industrialism from the 1950’s.  More recently, in 1972 NASA scientists discovered that the greenhouse effect is responsible for maintaining the temperature of Venus beyond the boiling point of water, and environmental scientist’s use that data as a means of projecting the Earth’s future climate.[40]  For example, contemporary data indicates that global warming will melt tropical glaciers, thereby increasing the risk that vectors (organisms such as mosquitoes or ticks that carry disease-causing microorganisms from one host to another) will infect the people and animals at elevations where the climate has not changed drastically for approximately 11,000 years.[41]  In addition, as tropical glaciers melt, fresh water will mix with ocean water, thereby altering the Jet Stream, and causing coastal flooding that will result in significant property damage (approximately 85 percent of the world’s population lives along the coast).  The most notable effect of global warming, however, will be unpredictable, severe precipitation that will cause flash flooding, or in some areas, the lack of precipitation, that will reduce agricultural output, consequently affecting GDP.  Simply put, a sustainable environment, one that is characterized by economic, social, and environmental conditions that must be maintained in order for the Earth to remain habitable and prosperous, is impossible to achieve under current CO2 levels.[42]  Therefore, based on that data, it can be argued that industrialization in the twenty-first century is unethical because despite its short-term benefits, the long-term effects are simply inconsistent with human life.  Nevertheless, how can society, and perhaps more importantly, world leaders, measure whether or not a decision, such as industrialization, is ethical?

According to the deontology of eighteenth century Western philosopher Immanuel Kant, an act is moral only when it is motivated by a maxim, autonomously derived, that could be formulated categorically as a universal law.[43]  Because industrialism is inconsistent with the requirements of sustainability, leaders of undeveloped nations could utilize Kant’s philosophical theories, for example, as a means of testing whether or not they ought to seek modernization through conventional means (industrialization), or through alternative methods of energy production (discussed on p. 29-30 of this report).  That decision must include an international agreement by all countries to create and adhere to laws that will remain consistent with the requirements of sustainability; accommodate the rapid de-carbonization of fuels destined for the South; and develop renewable energy sources in the North.[44]  If world leaders refuse to address the global warming crisis, the resulting catastrophe will dwarf what the British peasants, Indians, and Africans experienced after England successfully integrated from an agrarian to an industrialized society in the mid-eighteenth century.  For example, according to a report on child labor presented by parliamentary committee chairman Michael Thomas Sadler in 1832, children under the age of eighteen comprised forty to fifty percent of the industrial labor force in England’s cotton industry.[45]  The majority of those children were forced to endure long hours, frequent beatings, fatigue, and malnutrition.[46]  Simply put, the industrial mills and factories were, “disgusting to every ones conscious of correct morality.”  (Perry, Peden, and Von Kaue, 2003, p.140)  In India, the British acquired its natural resources through aggressive colonization campaigns that resulted in suffering and death, and in Africa, the British colonized most of that continent simply to prevent other European nations from acquiring it.  Because the previously mentioned facts of child labor, harsh working conditions, and colonization are inconsistent with basic human rights, it can be argued that industrialization is an unethical process.  However, in order for leaders of undeveloped nations, such as China, to understand the ramifications that industrialization will hold on their own nations, they must consider those inconsistencies in their future political-economic policies as they pertain to the environment, and consequently seek alternative methods of growing their economy.

Undeveloped nations must consider that although England’s successful integration from an agrarian to an industrialized society increased it agricultural and textile production, it satisfied its need for raw materials, land, and labor, through the aforementioned conditions of child labor, and violent expansion policies that resulted in the colonization, oppression, and subjugation of India and most of Africa by the early twentieth century.[47]  Internally, English peasants were forced to deal with child labor, harsh working conditions, and low wages that made it difficult to pay for food and rent, while the factory owners became wealthy, consequently widening the existing class gap.[48]  As industrialization spread throughout Europe, and in 1848 social and class tensions peaked in 1848 when unrest among factory workers led to revolutions in France, Germany, Austria, and Hungary.[49]  Eventually, the rebellions ceased, peasant demands were met, and serfdom was completely abolished throughout Western Europe.  Nevertheless, industrialization resulted in unnecessary human suffering, racial and gender discrimination, and the domination of the industrial class that lasted until the beginning of World War I.  After World War I, the world witnessed a shift of global superiority from Europe to the United States, thus representing the next phase of industrialization.  By comparison, the American industrial workers experienced better working conditions than the European workers, however, other human rights violations similar to those experienced in Europe persisted as industrial factory owners used human beings as a means to obtain power and wealth.[50]  Therefore, the ensuing human rights violations in Europe and America supports the theory that industrialization is an immoral process because, as Kant’s practical, or categorical, imperative indicates, individuals must act in such a manner that they always treat humans, “as an end and never simply as a means.”  (Kant, 1785, p.36)  In other words, if an act that an individual is about to perform is one that can be made binding for all humans, then it is ethical.  If drastic changes in current human activity as it pertains to the environment are not forthcoming, the, “rich-poor divide that ultimately defines,” (Athanasiou et al., 2002, p.14) global warming will make the social and cultural affects of the Industrial Revolution appear mild by comparison.  Therefore, Chinese leaders must base their decisions vis-à-vis their aggressive industrialization plans on the above-mentioned facts in order to prevent similar human rights violations.

The affects of industrialization do not end with the social aspects of rebellion, low wages, or child labor, and in order to understand why industrialization in the twenty-first century is unethical, it is important to evaluate the aforementioned historical facts of the Industrial Revolution, particularly as they relate to the history of climate change.  As mentioned above, environmental scientists postulate that a key requirement for humankind’s survival is its ability to maintain a sustainable environment, (see chart above) one that is characterized by environmental, economic, and social conditions that are required in order for Earth to remain habitable and prosperous.[51]  Those conditions, when balanced appropriately, collectively provide for the development of an agricultural system adequate to provide to all individuals.  Correspondingly, Kant’s ethical theories indirectly support environmental theories by alluding to the fact that the purpose of humanity is not happiness, which by industrialization standards constitutes materialism.[52]  Rather, the purpose of humanity is for individuals to develop within themselves the good will, which is, “not good because of what if effects or accomplishes…it is good only through its willing, i.e., it is good in itself,” (Kant, 1785, p.7) and can only be accomplished by resisting our inclinations, and adhering to our duties and morals.  Therefore, only those acts that are consistent with the requirements to maintain a sustainable environment can be deemed ethical because they would not be concerned with, “power, riches, [or] honor,” (Kant, 1785, p.7) which, without good intent, “can become extremely bad” (Kant, 1785, p.7).  Contrarily, eighteenth century philosopher John Stuart Mill might argue that the intent of an act is less important than whether or not that act promotes the greatest good for the greatest number of people.[53]  However, Kantian philosophy is unconcerned about the consequences of an act, rather, it is only concerned with the intent of an act, and because that intent must be good, it is therefore consistent with the requirements of sustainability, which is consistent with the requirements of life.  Because eighteenth century scientists had no prior data indicating that human activity could affect climate change, nor was it known that industrial machinery, which was originally invented to enhance human development, would result in social, cultural, and environmental catastrophe; it would not be logical to accuse eighteenth century world leaders of ethics violations.

“The community of nations of the earth has now gone so far that a violation of rights on one place of the earth is felt in all.”  (Kant, 1795)  That quote taken from Kant’s essay ‘Toward Perpetual Peace’ not only indicates his anticipation of the effects of globalization; it also represents the connection between Fourier’s research and Kant’s philosophies in the sense that Fourier inspired other environmentalists to analyze global climate change, and the collective results of their research demonstrate a link between industrialization and global human suffering.  Contemporary science benefits from nearly two hundred and fifty years of data that overwhelmingly demonstrates industrializations harmful side effects, thereby collectively providing sufficient data for scientists to conclude that all forms of life are endangered by human activity.  Based on those facts, it can be argued that the decision by world leaders to industrialize in the twenty-first century is unethical because it is inconsistent with the ethical requirements of Kant’s categorical imperative, which proposes that individuals must always act in such a manner that the maxim, or saying, of their actions, “should become a universal law.”  (Kant, 1785, p.v)  In order for any act to be deemed moral, it must be performed out of a sense of duty to what is beneficial to humanity, and it must be performed regardless of the consequences.[54]  Simply put, in order to remain consistent with societies ethical responsibilities of maintaining a sustainable environment, governmental and business leaders ought to forfeit the economic, militarily, and technological gains that typically ensues industrialization, and seek alternative growth methods.  Nevertheless, because the economic, military, and technological strength of non-Western nations typically lags that of fully industrialized Western nations, many underdeveloped nations might be willing to risk the previously mentioned consequences in exchange for its positive short-term benefits.  However, it is the responsibly of all leaders to act as moral agents, or individuals who do what is right simply because it is right.[55]  Further more, according to Kantian philosophy, morality takes for granted what science can neither prove nor disprove; the existence of freedom, which in this case would include the freedom, or right, to a sustainable environment shared by all humans.[56]

Kantian philosophy insinuates that in order to be truly ethical, all acts must consistently treat humanity as an end, and not as a means.[57]  Therefore, one possible, though impractical, solution that would remain consistent with the needs of humanity, and simultaneously end the atrocities caused by industrialization, is for society to cease all industrialization processes immediately, and return to an agrarian lifestyle.  Based on Kant’s hypothetical imperative, which, “represents the practical necessity of a possible action as means for attainting something else,” (Kant, 1785, p.25) it might be argued that renouncing industrialization would be practical because it would result in something else, namely a sustainable environment that provides clean water, a stable climate, and a sufficient food supply.  Unfortunately, an agrarian civilization, which in many ways describes the majority of China’s population, is so far removed from today’s avant-garde technological society that the mere thought of it conjures up images of an Amish way of life, and is not only impractical for the global economy, it is also inconsistent with a much-needed progressive solution to the imminent crisis.  Simply because current data indicates that ending industrialization might save future generations unnecessary hardship, non-Western nations are unlikely to relinquish their opportunity to modernize because the alternative of not industrializing will result in present-day hardship, thus creating a modern day quandary with no recognizable resolution.

A better solution to the industrialization problem, one that would be consistent with Kant’s categorical imperative because it would represent, “an action as objectively necessary in itself, without reference to another end” (Kant, 1785, p.25) calls for wealthy Western nations to develop and distribute alternative sources of solar and hydrogen power to undeveloped nations, at no cost.[58]  Doing so would consequently eliminate the need for nations with unstable governments to seek nuclear materials, and would therefore be consistent with Kant’s notions on good will because it would provide a reusable, environmentally friendly source of power; impede the level of CO2 build up in the atmosphere; and maintain a sustainable environment.  In other words, Kant would probably agree that doing so would be, “good in itself.”  (Kant, 1785, p.7)  It might be argued that such an act would be inconsistent with the categorical imperative because it would reference another end: that being a source of alternative energy that would benefit other humans.  However, it is likely that Kant was referring to individual benefits, such as political power or monetary gain, rather than environmental conditions, since the former contradicts the good will, and the latter corresponds with it.

In addition to solar and wind power, another possible solution to the imminent environmental crisis that world leaders in undeveloped nations ought to consider is the development of urban structures that reduce the necessity for individuals to commute to and from work.  For example, Japanese engineers are currently planning to build Sky City, a comprehensive city that would dwarf current skyscrapers, house 35,000 residents and host 100,000 workers, students, and visitors daily.[59]  Because the main concern in maintaining a sustainable environment is not more efficient transportation, but rather, the development of urban centers that would accommodate more efficient transportation, Sky City would be consistent with that requirement because it would literally eliminate the need for people to compute to work, or virtually anywhere else, except for recreational purposes outside their regions.  At a cost of one hundred and fifty billion dollars, many nations might understandably be dissuaded from embracing such a project.  Nevertheless, as compared to the costs of industrialization, which arguably includes the economic, social, and cultural costs of war, those costs would be offset by the reduction of CO2 levels that are required to maintain a sustainable environment, consequently benefiting all forms of life.  Of course, without sufficient international political-economic policies, solar power, windmills, or urban super-structures such as Sky City will never be realized.  Therefore, in order to remain consistent with the requirements of sustainability, humans must first address the above-mentioned obstacles, and develop policies that accommodate those needs.  In particular, areas that expect incredible population increases, such as China and other NIC’s, would benefit from urban super-structures because even though it has managed to, “cut greenhouse gases by 19 percent during a five-year period,” (Gelbspan, 2003, p.72) its economy and population grew disproportionately, thereby indicating that by 2030 the needs of its people will far exceed its resources.

In order for any act to be deemed moral, it must be performed out of a sense of duty to what is beneficial to humanity, and it must promote the laws of moral behavior.  Although it is not practical to assume that world leaders will end industrial processes, a worldwide crises will ensue if drastic changes in human activity as it pertains to the environment are not forthcoming.  Therefore, present-day leaders must utilize reasonable ethical theories as a means of bettering society, and saving the environment from the looming global catastrophe, rather than as a end to their own wealth and political power.  Undeveloped nations will not, and should not, accept Western solutions to the global warming crisis because wealthy nations, such as the United States and most of Western Europe, created and benefited from their aggressive growth strategies, while the rest of the world suffered.  In order for humankind to survive, it ought to apply the concepts of Kant, Keynes, and other intellectuals whose philosophies make sense, and provide sound guidelines that will reduce the existing class gap.  Only then will international governments develop viable solutions that are acceptable to all humans.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Athanasiou, T., & Baer, P. (2002). Dead Heat – Global Justice and Global Warming. 140 Watts Street, New York, NY 10003: Seven Stories Press.

Baumol, W. J., & Blinder, A. S.. Economics – Principles and Policy (eighth ed.) 301 Commerce Street, Suite 3700, Fort Worth, TX  76102: Harcourt College Publishers.

Buckley, Ebrey, P. (2003). The Cambridge Illustrated History of China. The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK: Cambridge University Press.

de Bary, W. (Complied by), & Lufrano, R. (Compiled by). (1999). Sources of Chinese Tradition – From 1600 Through the Twentieth Century (Second ed., II). New York Chichester, West Sussex: Columbia University Press.

Friedman, T. L. (2000). The Lexus and the Olive Tree. New York: Anchor Books.

Gelspan, R. (2003). Boiling Point – How Politicians, Big Oil and Coal, Journalists, and Activists Have Fueled the Climate Crisis. 387 Park Avenue South, New York, NY  10016-8810: Basic Books.

Heng, L., & Shapiro, J. (1984). Son of the Revolution. New York, NY: Random House.

Kant, I., & Ellington, J. W. (1785). Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals (Third ed., J. W. Ellington, Trans.) Box 44937, Indianapolis, Indiana 46244-0937: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.

Kant, I., (1795). Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch

Lamborn, A. C., & Lepgold, J.. World Politics Into the Twenty-First Century. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458: Prentice Hall.

Lewis, H. (2000). A Question of Values. 6747 Blackwell’s Hollow Road, Crozet, VA 22932: Axios Press.

Mill, J., & Collini, S. (2004). S. Collini (Ed.), On Liberty and other writings. The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom: The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.

Moomaw, W. R. (1989). In Search of the Greenhouse Finger [Special issue]. Orion Nature Quarterly.

Perry, M., Peden, J. R., & Von Laue, T. H.. Sources of the Western Tradition – From the Renaissance to the Present (Fifth ed., II). 222 Berkley Street, Boston, MA  02116-3764: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Sky City (2005). Retrieved from http://media.dsc.discovery.com/convergence/engineering/skycity/interactive/interactive.

html

Stearns, P. N., Adas, M., Schwartz, S. B., & Gilbert, M. (2003). world Civilizations – The Global Experience: Vol. 2. 1450 to Present. New York, NY: Pearson Longman.

http://www.cia.gov/csi/books/watchingthebear/article02.html

 

[1] see Lewis, H. (2000). A Question of Values. 6747 Blackwell’s Hollow Road, Crozet, VA 22932: Axios Press.

 

[2]  see Lamborn, A. C., & Lepgold, J.. World Politics Into the Twenty-First Century. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458: Prentice Hall.

[3] Ibid.

[4] see Lamborn, A. C., & Lepgold, J.. World Politics Into the Twenty-First Century. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458: Prentice Hall.

[5] Ibid.

[6] see Baumol, W. J., & Blinder, A. S.. Economics – Principles and Policy (eighth ed.) 301 Commerce Street, Suite 3700, Fort Worth, TX  76102: Harcourt College Publishers.

[7] Ibid.

[8] see Buckley, Ebrey, P. (2003). The Cambridge Illustrated History of China. The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge

CB2 2RU, UK: Cambridge University Press

[9]  Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid.

[12] http://www.cia.gov/csi/books/watchingthebear/article02.html

[13] see Buckley, Ebrey, P. (2003). The Cambridge Illustrated History of China. The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK: Cambridge University Press.

[14] Ibid.

[15] see de Bary, W. (Complied by), & Lufrano, R. (Compiled by). (1999). Sources of Chinese Tradition – From 1600 Through the Twentieth Century (Second ed., II). New York Chichester,: Columbia University Press.

[16] see Buckley, Ebrey, P. (2003). The Cambridge Illustrated History of China. The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK: Cambridge University Press.

[17] Ibid.

[18] see Stearns, P. N., Adas, M., Schwartz, S. B., & Gilbert, M. (2003). World Civilizations – The Global Experience: Vol. 2. 1450 to Present. New York, NY: Pearson Longman.

 

[19] see Buckley, Ebrey, P. (2003). The Cambridge Illustrated History of China. The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK: Cambridge University Press.

 

[20] see Buckley, Ebrey, P. (2003). The Cambridge Illustrated History of China. The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK: Cambridge University Press.

[21] Ibid.

[22] see Friedman, T. L. (2000). The Lexus and the Olive Tree. New York: Anchor Books.

 

[23] http://www.cia.gov/csi/books/watchingthebear/article02.html

[24] Ibid.

[25] http://www.cia.gov/csi/books/watchingthebear/article02.html

[26] see Najam, A. (2003). Najam, A. Energy and Sustainable Development at Global Environmental Summits: An Evolving Agenda. Environment, Development and Sustainability.

[27] see Stearns, P. N., Adas, M., Schwartz, S. B., & Gilbert, M. (2003). World Civilizations – The Global Experience: Vol. 2. 1450 to Present. New York, NY: Pearson Longman.

[28] see Moomaw, W. R. (1989). In Search of the Greenhouse Finger [Special issue]. Orion Nature Quarterly.

 

[29] see Moomaw, W. R. (1989). In Search of the Greenhouse Finger [Special issue]. Orion Nature Quarterly.

[30] see Athanasiou, T., & Baer, P. (2002). Dead Heat – Global Justice and Global Warming. 140 Watts Street, New

York, NY 10003: Seven Stories Press

[31] see Athanasiou, T., & Baer, P. (2002). Dead Heat – Global Justice and Global Warming. 140 Watts Street, New York, NY 10003: Seven Stories Press.

 

[32] Athanasiou, T., & Baer, P. (2002). Dead Heat – Global Justice and Global Warming. 140 Watts Street, New York, NY 10003: Seven Stories Press. p.12

 

[33] http://www.cia.gov/csi/books/watchingthebear/article02.html

[34] Ibid.

[35] see Buckley, Ebrey, P. (2003). The Cambridge Illustrated History of China. The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK: Cambridge University Press.

 

[36] Stearns, P. N., Adas, M., Schwartz, S. B., & Gilbert, M. (2003). World Civilizations – The Global Experience: Vol. 2. 1450 to Present. New York, NY: Pearson Longman. p. 658

[37] see Moomaw, W. R. (1989). In Search of the Greenhouse Finger [Special issue]. Orion Nature Quarterly.

[38] Ibid.

[39] Ibid.

[40] see Moomaw, W. R. (1989). In Search of the Greenhouse Finger [Special issue]. Orion Nature Quarterly.

[41] Ibid.

[42] see Najam, A. (2003). Najam, A. Energy and Sustainable Development at Global Environmental Summits: An Evolving Agenda. Environment, Development and Sustainability.

[43] see Kant, I., & Ellington, J. W. (1785). Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals (Third ed., J. W. Ellington, Trans.) Box 44937, Indianapolis, Indiana 46244-0937: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.

[44] see Athanasiou, T., & Baer, P. (2002). Dead Heat – Global Justice and Global Warming. 140 Watts Street, New York, NY 10003: Seven Stories Press.

 

[45] see Perry, M., Peden, J. R., & Von Laue, T. H.. Sources of the Western Tradition – From the Renaissance to the Present (Fifth ed., II). 222 Berkley Street, Boston, MA  02116-3764: Houghton Mifflin Company.

[46] Ibid.

[47] see Stearns, P. N., Adas, M., Schwartz, S. B., & Gilbert, M. (2003). World Civilizations – The Global Experience: Vol. 2. 1450 to Present. New York, NY: Pearson Longman.

[48] see Stearns, P. N., Adas, M., Schwartz, S. B., & Gilbert, M. (2003). World Civilizations – The Global Experience:

Vol. 2. 1450 to Present. New York, NY: Pearson Longman.

[49] Ibid.

[50] Ibid.

[51] see Najam, A. (2003). Najam, A. Energy and Sustainable Development at Global Environmental Summits: An Evolving Agenda. Environment, Development and Sustainability.

[52] Kant, I., & Ellington, J. W. (1785). Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals (Third ed., J. W. Ellington, Trans.) Box 44937, Indianapolis, Indiana 46244-0937: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. p. 7

 

[53]  see Mill, J., & Collini, S. (2004). S. Collini (Ed.), On Liberty and other writings. The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom: The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.

[54] see Kant, I., & Ellington, J. W. (1785). Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals (Third ed., J. W. Ellington, Trans.) Box 44937, Indianapolis, Indiana 46244-0937: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.

[55] Ibid.

[56] Ibid.

[57] Ibid.

[58] Athanasiou, T., & Baer, P. (2002). Dead Heat – Global Justice and Global Warming. 140 Watts Street, New York, NY 10003: Seven Stories Press. p. 18

[59] Sky City (2005). Retrieved from http://media.dsc.discovery.com/convergence/engineering/skycity/interactive/interactive.html

Related Posts