416 CHAPTER ElEvEn ■ TransnaTional issues
the environment in an unsustainable way, by misusing the commons, the developed
countries were able to achieve high levels of— depending upon one’s point of view—
either economic development or consumption. Putting restrictions on developing
countries by not allowing them to exploit their natu ral resources or by limiting their
use of fossil fuels may impede their development. Thus, because the developed states
have been responsible for most of the environmental excesses, it is they who should
bear the burden of reduced energy consumption and environmental cleanup.
The challenge in addressing transnational environmental issues is to negotiate a
middle ground that reflects the fact that both sides are, in fact, correct. High popula-
tion growth rates are a prob lem in the South— one that will not be alleviated until
higher levels of economic development are achieved. Overuse of natu ral resources is
primarily a prob lem of the North. Power ful economic interests in the North are con-
tinually reminding us that changes in resource use may lead to a lower standard of
living. Pollution is a by- product of both prob lems, which in the South tends to be
in the form of land- and water- resource overuse because of excessive population,
whereas in the North, it stems from the by- products and negative externalities of
industrialization. Thus, more than the other transnational issues, the environmental
issue involves trade- offs with economic interests. Economic security is more likely to
lead to environmental security. Realists, liberals, radicals, and constructivists do not
all have the same degree of concern for environmental issues, although each group has
modified its perspectives in response to external changes.
Realists’ principal emphasis has been on state security, although some have identi-
fied human- security concerns. Both types of security require a healthy and strong
population base, near self- sufficiency in food, and a dependable supply of natu ral
resources. Making the costs of natu ral resources or the costs of pollution abatement
too high diminishes a state’s ability to make in de pen dent decisions. So, for example,
Iceland’s de pen dency on cod fishing as an industry made it much more vulnerable to
unsustainable harvesting practices by its own fisheries and those of Britain and the
United States, and to issues surrounding the rise in sea temperatures caused by global
warming, which have caused cod populations to move to deeper or more northerly
waters. The deeper implication is that for countries like Iceland, sovereignty is neces-
sarily abridged, and the security of Iceland’s citizens cannot be guaranteed by the state.
Thus, realists fit environmental issues into the theoretical concepts of the state, power,
sovereignty, and the balance of power.
Radicals are also concerned with the economic costs of the environmental prob-
lem. Radicals are apt to see the costs borne disproportionately by those in the South
and by the poorer groups in the developed North. What remains striking about the
most recent de cade is how the most cogent part of radical—in this case, Marxist—
theory has been revived by a resurgent transnational corporatism. Marxism predicts