I think no. Larger developed countries like the US are doing next to nothing (compared to what they could be doing) to clean up their act, so to speak. It's hypocrisy to put conditions on their aid. That sort of thinking leads to discrimination, with developed nations playing favorites, and forging evidence to show that their "fave" has made enviro changes that they have not. One solution I would pose is to ask developed nations to extend types of aid to include the subsidization of enviro-projects. Another is something that has no direct connection with this debate: the world authority (UN sanctioned organizations like UNEP) needs to define what levels of pollution and what environmental practices are acceptable. I would suggest this be a multi-tiered system, capable of a small amount of leniency towards countries that cannot presently afford to make changes to their practices. Of course, this is difficult to enforce, but a world-wide policy is necessary if we are going to recover from the mistakes of the past two decades.

--
The greatest thing you'll ever learn...


I am a ninja!

(but that's not it)

I am inclined to agree with you. BUT, I always feel that the old hypocrisy argument doesnt hold up in politics usually as usually there are different reasons for doing somthing. For instance in order to survive a nation like the UK needs to use fossil fuels but gently pull away (as is happening). But a developeing nation can feasibley grow using enviromentally friendly projects. Additionally I would say that just because the West damages the enviroment doesnt mean they shouldnt try to stop others from doing it. Is it not enough the USA is bent on using fossil fuel et al.

I guess the big problem with a nation like the states holding environmentalism over a developing nation is the fact that the US is one of the world's largest polluters. Sure they're moving in the right direction, but you just know that if a policy like this was enacted that they'd make it at least as strict as their own, but with stronger enforcement. The number one reason more environmentally friendly options are just now coming to light is money. The large corporations can afford to spend a few million on refitting a plant, but to do so they would have to do one thing that people in power never do: cut their own salaries. If higher end administration and executives didn't have such grandiose salaries then companies could afford to make the changes necessary. Once you're given power (money etc) you fight to keep it. Greed has a grip on our society, it's slowing development and stalling the shift to eco-friendly options.

--
The greatest thing you'll ever learn...


I am a ninja!

(but that's not it)

yes, unfortunatly its actually economical to use enviromentally friendly fuels, well, definitly in Europe and longterm it is anywhere. I dont really think the USA has gone the right direction, well, not enought to be taken seriously.

Okay, just to make this part clear, I have no clue what our country (USA) is doing entirely to help with the environment. I know that some of it is a joke/front to make it look like we're really doing something, and others are truly making an effort.

But, now to my point.
Developing countries should do what they can, just as the rest of us should, but I don't think it should be a requirement for aid ... unless they are doing extensive damage (like nearing a crisis point). I mean, if a country is trying to get by, trying to advance, and they don't have the resources yet to implement "Go Green" plans, they shouldn't be forced to. With time, they will.

--
"Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible." - T. E. Lawrence