Manufacturing industries present society with a dilemma. A healthy manufacturing sector helps an economy to grow, thereby raising living standards — an especially important goal for developing countries. However, as factories try to meet ever-growing consumer demand, they deplete the world’s natural resources and pollute the environment. For some, the world now faces a stark choice between rising prosperity and a cleaner, more sustainable environment. In fact, with new technology and fresh thinking, policymakers can strike a durable balance between these competing interests.
In developed countries, consumers are increasingly recognizing that, while their material wellbeing may be higher than ever, their quality of life suffers if the environment is damaged. For poorer countries, such concerns are dismissed as a rich-world luxury. Industrial expansion is the best way to eradicate poverty and must surely trump environmental concerns.
No government, rich or poor, can ignore the imperative to encourage economic growth. The manufacturing sector creates jobs, makes affordable products for cash-strapped consumers, produces vital tax revenue that can be used to support social goals and brings in foreign currency in the form of export revenue. In short, a well-run manufacturing sector spreads wealth across society.
However, trying to satisfy the seemingly endless material demands of consumers at all levels of the economic pyramid has placed an unmanageable burden on the natural world. Resources are being consumed more quickly than the planet can replace them.
The manufacturing sector is particularly voracious, devouring more than half of all raw materials, about 30 percent of the world’s energy and 20 percent of its water. In the process, it produces too much waste for our fragile ecosystems to absorb.
Now, public opinion is starting to turn against what is increasingly perceived as plunder on a global scale.
Policymakers may not be able to compel citizens to ration their consumption. However, governments can encourage manufacturers to change how they operate, so that they use fewer resources and eliminate unnecessary waste.
Technological innovation and recyclable inputs can make a huge difference to the way the world produces and consumes. Like the dramatic changes once wrought by mass production, there is similar potential in the development and application of 3D printing, biotechnology, nanotechnology and other resource-efficient technologies.
Management thinkers, from C.K. Prahalad to Jaideep Prabhu, have shown how industry can be reconfigured to produce high-quality products cheaply and cleanly.
Indeed, these technologies and management ideas amount to something of a new industrial revolution — though one that will be very different from the Industrial Revolution that made Great Britain the dominant world power in the 19th century and helped it build a global empire.
The current transformation will be more democratic, spreading through global supply chains and modern communications to all countries that are integrated into the global economy. And it will be characterized by partnerships between government, the private sector and civil society.
Our challenge and our historic opportunity are to recognize this potential, and find ways for diverse groups to collaborate and realize it. A Green Industry Conference held recently in Guangzhou, China — following similar events in Manila in 2009 and Tokyo in 2011 — provides a template for this kind of broad cooperation. Delegates shared best practices, discussed ways to accelerate change in a range of sectors and sought innovative solutions to old management problems.
No one need be left out of this revolution. Even countries with abundant natural resources do not have to fear the shift to a greener world. By adopting new economic models, their large, but finite reserves will not be rendered useless; they will simply last longer. At the same time, countries facing shortages will gain greatly from being able to reduce their own resource needs.
Businesses, too, have been quick to adopt new practices. Many now routinely monitor and report on their environmental impact. Some are even starting to organize around new industrial concepts such as the “circular economy,” which focuses on reducing waste through multiple rounds of recycling.
This revolution may have been borne out of necessity; but, with ingenuity and cooperation, it will prove to be profitable, over the long run, for countries, manufacturers and consumers worldwide.
Li Yong is director-general of the UN Industrial Development Organization.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath