Blueprint for G7 Planet
스웨덴의 대학은 표절에 대하여 매우 엄격합니다. 그것을 알려주기 위하여 제시한 첫 숙제 . . .
첨부파일이 있습니다.
Blueprint.pdf
Blueprint.docx
799A01 Introduction to advanced academic studies
For international master students in Faculty of Arts and Sciences
*********************************************************************************
http://webstaff.itn.liu.se/~qinye/799A01/
Assignment : Read "Blueprint for better planet" and Write a one page critque
숙제 : 미래를 위한 청사진이라는 글을 읽고 비평하는 글을 작성하라
Blueprint for G7 Planet by Mooyoung Son, 811121-T077, SMIO, Linkoping University
“To make the world safer and more prosperous . . .” The author, the global environmental sustainability expert Lester R. Brown, suggested in the article. For centuries, Humanity destroyed natural asset for economic development. U.S. was on the first especially at cold war and world war. U.S. government banned every kind of manufacturing for personal purpose and Japanese extorted every kind of mineral resource from Korea and China. His “Plan B for better planet” can be a nice substitution for our future. Unfortunately this theory “Plan B” has a possibility to make some poor countries even poorer. The problem is on the fact that this “Plan B” is suit on rich countries only and it can be used by bad Samaritan countries to do “Kicking Away the Ladder”. Many of richest countries (what they call as “G7”) are those who was the biggest destroyer once. This is because economic development and environment preservation are situated at totally opposite direction for politic decision makers. According to economist Hajoon Chang on his book, rich countries are lying to poor countries to disturb them being rich (Kicking Away the Ladder). He described on his book, “that much the same is true of the modern industrial economies of the West, including Britain and the United States. Although advocates of free trade typically extol the British as the pioneers of open markets, London lowered tariffs in the mid-19th century only after its industries had firmly established their lead over rivals. Likewise, U.S. tariffs remained high throughout America's industrialization. So why today’s poor nations should be required to develop differently?” His theory verify that “Plan B to make a better planet using tax shifting without any extra cost doesn’t fit for poor countries” [1] Rich countries (what Chang call as “Bad Samaritans”) like Japan, Germany and U.S. destroyed natural resource (some of them extracted from their colony) to develop their economy and their firmly established economy can support extra cost for natural environment. However it is not very true for poor countries and hasty shifting tax can cause non-restorable decline on their economy. China’s Growth rate declined after China joined OECD which means they accepted FTA with OECD Agreement on Environmental Standards.[2] This certify that solving economic growth and environmental problem together is not very easy question. At the same time it prove some data in the article “Together, these two measures helped to reduce coal use in China by 5 percent between 1997 and 2001, when the economy was expanding by one-third" doesn’t get sense. To the conclusion, making decision on something effective on whole nation should not be a simple question. Rather, it should be made with deep consideration.
