In his Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor, Garrett Hardin suggests his solution to the global wasting and polluting problem. Lifeboat ethics, which means to guard against the boarding parties in order to preserve safety, should be applied to the real world with great disparity in population growth between rich countries and poor countries. What are our current solutions? The humanitarian proposal of World Food Bank would absolutely end up in the Tragedy of the Commons; export of technology and advice to improve agricultural output can never feed those hungry mouths in poor countries, which are in a population explosion. Even if we can solve the hunger problem by introducing miracle rice, how can the earth cash our draft on all aspects of environment? To save our posterity from future disaster, responsible governments should control reproduction and consumption on environmental resources.

As stated in his essay, Hardin argues that our needs are determined by population size. Therefore, it is the poor countries that are contributing to the heavy burden on the earth. Rich countries that enjoy relatively small population have no further obligation to help them for they should learn to budget for accidences. However, this statement is ex parte in that it fails to recognize another important factor, national consumption.

Since the Industrial Revolution, prosperity in cities and economic growth has caused increasing demand for land, energy and other resources. As the standard of living improves, life costs mount up, especially in developed countries, which results in large amount of waste and pollutant pouring to the earth. Take USA as an example. In 2004, the country used up 20.4 million barrels of crude oil daily, three times larger than China. In terms of per capita, the consumption of USA is ten times larger than that of China and it continues to rise. The comparison would be more astonishing between the super States and some primitive countries in Africa. USA only, has cashed incredible amount from the Bank of Earth. So when those rich countries accusing the poor countries of overpopulation, have they ever thought of the heavy burden they imposed on our environment?

Meanwhile, as mentioned by Hardin, when opened to all, the Commons would be over utilized without corresponding protection by virtue of man’s selfishness. The author criticizes poor countries for their unlimited need as their population explodes. However, what have rich countries done to our Commons? Besides their unbearable national consumption, they continue to spoil the earth in every respect. Emission of carbon dioxide which is the root of Global Warming, is a case in point. Based on statistics, per capital emission in America amounts to 20 ton annually, which takes up 23.7% of the global emission in total. In this case, rich countries bear more responsibility than poor countries. However, the US President proclaimed to secede from Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty which is aimed to control the emission of carbon dioxide to a reasonable lever, and developed countries have more responsibility to reduce their emission during producing process thereunder. After that, Canada and Australia followed his example. As a result, the Kyoto Protocol falls short of expectation since without the participation of those most developed countries to cut down emission, any attempt to resist global warming would be in vain.

As we all know, the increasing temperature will cause raise of sea lever, water will submerge coastlands, and thus immediate action should be taken to stop the trend. But why some civilized rich countries who must be aware of the severe consequence evade their responsibility？The fundamental reason is closely relating to their economic interests. Mass production absolutely accompanies with emission of carbon dioxide; cut down emission implies to reduce production. So as to maintain a persistent economic growth, governments are very likely to ignore environmental affect. Meanwhile, they would encourage their national consumption because it is the incentive and guarantee to economic prosperity and industrial development. In this circumstance, people tend to consume much more than necessary.

The industrial growth at the cost of environmental pollution cannot sustain for it boosts consumption and aggravates the burden on resources without limit. To maintain a sustainable development, we shall find out a more environment friendly lifestyle to thoroughly abandon the vicious growth mode and diminish unnecessary living cost. Prince Charles has given us a hint through his experiment of city village in his territory Highgrove where people live in a modern but natural way and industrial pollution has been lower to minimum.

The Earth is our common property, and both rich countries and poor countries bear their responsibility respectively. There is no justifiable excuse for anyone to evade liability. For the sake of environmental protection, rich countries shall bear more responsibility to control the discharge of wastes and pollutant during their economic and industrial development. At the same time, they ought to help developing and poor countries stop rapid reproduction and carry on sustainable development for the earth is our common property.