Sustainable Living

 As the growth and innovation of society and populations peak in developing countries, one must think to consider how this world, full of finite resources and land acreage, will account for the seemingly ever-growing population. Disputes transpire between the opposing conditions of development over how “clean” the country ought to develop as. Two terms for delineating between the different stages of evolution are developed and developing countries. Developed countries wish to enforce sustainable construction and progression. Developing countries believe they should be grandfathered in and relieved of global restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions and the usage of fossil fuels. The countries prospering in their establishment push for clean and sustainable methods of doing so in order to mitigate the possibility of increased exploitation of fossil fuels. Countries working on establishing themselves in the worldwide market economy perceive themselves to be at a disadvantage if not given the opportunity to develop with the same non-renewables as the first world countries. The first world countries, as they are already developed, annul their actions by justifying how developing nations can learn from their mistakes. This is why there is a push for sustainable development. Perpetuating the utilization of fossil fuels does not assist in the push for clean energy usage. Furthermore, by understanding the intrinsic value of nature, the development will reflect this moral motivation to capitalize on the natural resources the Earth provides to support the expansion of the human population. The argument proceeds that the initially developed, first-world countries progressed for over one hundred and fifty years without monitoring their pollution rates. Countries such as the United States, Japan, and the nations of the European Union produced much of the current carbon dioxide found in the atmosphere. So much so, that their combined consumption drew attention to environmental pollution. The perpetuation of the situation from socialization and society as a whole produced ownership over the means of production which rules all other aspects of society and the institutions within it. These core countries became rich because they exploited the natural stock first, stole the common pool resources, and commodified them after excluding their use from the market. Ostracizing the developing nations from the first round of development extrapolated their ability to advance equality. This is, in part, due to the structure in place where the various countries are categorized based on their generation rates. There are three different types of development scales and their corresponding timelines for the Core, Semi-Periphery, and Periphery countries as classified under the World Systems Theory. The core includes major world powers and the countries that contain much of the wealth of the planet. They dominate world trade, technology, and development through exploitation and control of the two lower categories. The periphery has those countries that are not reaping the benefits of global wealth and globalization, specializing in agriculture and extractive practices. The semi-periphery is in the middle, processing raw materials for the manufacturing of core goods, adding to their value.  Consequently, core industrial infrastructures were constructed to be dependent on the burning of fossil fuels. This unregulated ability to establish a capitalist economy contingent on these non-renewable energy sources is still a remnant in their current infrastructures. Periphery countries contend that if these successful and profiting nations were allowed to advance this way they should be able to as well. The difference between how core and periphery countries develop is detrimental to the globe’s future state. This organization of systems sets up a correlation to the World Systems Trap. The World Systems Trap relies on the core countries building on a period of accumulation by dispossession and reifying dominance. The dualistic nature of the core and periphery countries establishes a “have versus have not” dichotomy. This kind of polarization creates systemic inequality which is counterintuitive to the goal of sustainable progression.