The United Nations declared this week that there is a “looming environmental disaster” in the Ukraine, referring to the potential for toxins from abandoned mines to seep into neighboring communities. The mines are located in the Western Ukraine, and run along the Sivka River. After the UN stepped in to do an analysis on environmental impact at the request of the Ukrainian government, experts uncovered a dangerously high probability that one or more of the dams containing hazardous chemicals from the mines could break. If this happened, an organic compound called hexachlorobenzene, or HBC, would be released into the surrounding environment. This would contaminate ground water and negatively impact the health of many Ukrainians. The UN Environment Program (UNEP) has responded with a claim that “immediate action should be taken” in order to thwart this crisis.
Article about Crisis in the Ukraine
Pamphlet on Mining in Independent Countries
Effects of HBC on Animals and Humans
That an immediate action should be taken is undeniable. That an immediate action will be taken is debatable when it comes to international relations. Many times, “hard” issues of national security, as well as the endurance of relative power, are seen as a priority by international organizations, whereas “softer” issues of looming environmental threats tend to be seen as less urgent. International environmental lobbyists are attempting to change this mindset. Their rhetoric argues that international policies have far too often adopted an anthropocentric viewpoint. When taken into account with impending climate change and resulting environmental crises, it can be seen that anthropocentric policies will not suffice. Especially in former third world countries, (such as in the Ukraine), where both economic and infrastructure development are argued to be of more importance, environmental impact fails to be taken into account.
Environmentalists within the realm of international relations argue that these regions (former and current war torn regions) will be the most important to focus on in coming years. Even when looked at traditionally, devastation of land and resources could have a very direct impact on national security. Environmental refugees will begin to fight wars over what precious resources they have left. This could lead to an increase in terrorist activity and an increase in illegal immigration.
Regions of the world that continue to live off the land are important to secure environmentally. Peaceful areas are less apt to suffer from recurring environmental destruction. Countries and regions with more weight in the international community, (such as the United Kingdom, as well as the United States, Russia, and Germany) must allocate funds for the prevention of environmental crises, as they are likely to become international crises.
Environmental disasters should be a top priority for international attention. Not only can they destroy ecosystems and natural resources, but they can devastate economies and communities. Something like a oil spill might not only destroy habitat and local wildlife, but it could harm industries such as fisheries and power generation, which relies on saltwater for operation (http://www.itopf.com/marine-spills/effects/economic-impacts/index.html). With problems like global warming and dwindling freshwater supplies, environmental disasters could be an even greater problem in the future. As time goes on, I believe environmental disaster will become a top priority by international organizations, rather than a secondary priority.
ReplyDelete