Economic Development vs. Environment Protection Whether international leadership and worldwide cooperation should place particular emphasis on protection of the environment is a controversial issue that has drawn considerable attention recently. According to Vishwa Mohan, there was a debate on the climate-damaging refrigerant gas, that whether the UNFCCC principles should apply for phasing out the HFC at Warsaw green meeting on Nov, 18, 2013. As a matter of fact, during the phase-out of CFC (chlorofluorocarbon) under the Montreal Protocol, manufacturers of equipment such as car air conditioners and kitchen refrigerators modified their product to use HFC instead. On the one hand, though HFC was not an ozone-depleting gas, the US and other developed countries contended that addressing HFC under the Montreal Protocol was for the common good. While on the other hand, India and many developing counties including Persian Gulf nations preferred to give priority to their domestic industries, which alternative technologies and low cost were taken into consideration. Admittedly, this controversial issue exhausts the practical applications of Utilitarianism to a certain extent. For Rachels’ perspective, “According to Classical Utilitarianism, an action is right if it produces the greatest overall balance of happiness over unhappiness.” (Rachels 110) As far as I am concerned, I tend to believe that emphasis on the overwhelming importance of phasing out HFC for the purpose of protecting environment does not necessarily contradict with encouraging individual nations to make voluntary and independent efforts to develop economy. Nevertheless, “Utilitarianism answers the question “What actions are right?” by reference to the question “What things are good?” Right actions are the ones that produce the most good.” (Rachels 111) This specific case in point involves reducing the use of HFC would help slow climate change and curb potential adverse public health effects, which is the ultimate “right action” for the common good. Moreover, the utilitarian place top priority to “happiness” and “believe that we should look at what will happen as a result of doing it.” (Rachels 112) An international effort is indispensable to protect environment for future generations. Left to their own devices, individual nations, like India and other developing countries, will act according to their short-term motives and self-interest. In order to protect maximum benefit of industries from their countries, they were unwilling to classify HFC as climate damaging gas under the UNFCC which deals with greenhouse gases. Some people might object to my opinion, claiming that individual nations can assume responsibilities for their own good. It cannot be denied that many industry standards are of even higher level than corresponding government regulations. I have to admit that this is true to a large extent. But what about the interest of whole industry conflict with the public good on a larger scope? The refrigeration industry was reluctant to apply CFC free technology even after the Montreal Protocol was signed. A black market was even formed to import HFC materials from China and India. The customers preferred to buy refrigerators of low cost and the whole industry from those developing countries was happy to continue the production of these products. Consequently, governments which represent two sides of interests, had to step in at this “Green Meet” so that our common environment can be protected. In this case, to optimize for the best of the whole world user base is to protect the environment as a long term plan, and it will also turn out to be the best consequences of doing it. What’s more, “Utilitarians understand “pleasure” broadly, to include all mental states that feel good.” (Rachels, 111) There are three ranked kinds of pleasure, whereas, moral pleasure is good feelings from knowing you’ve done the right thing. The feeling you get after you give an homeless person money, or spend time volunteering for a worthy cause. Undoubtedly, no individual country will voluntarily make, independently, the sacrifices necessary to protect environment. Furthermore, phasing out climate damaging gas is a world-wide project. The controversial issue transcends national borders in that either all nations must cooperate, or all will ultimately suffer. Therefore, to attain moral pleasure international leadership and worldwide representative nations are essential if we expect to protect the environment for all good. Also, when we have interest conflict, the book writes of Utilitarianism nature: On Utilitarianism, an individual’s rights may always be trampled upon if enough people benefit from the trampling; … if the majority of people would take pleasure in someone’s rights being abused, because the pleasure of the majority outweighs the suffering of the one. However, we do not think that our individual rights should mean so little, morally. The notion of an individual right is not a utilitarian notion. (Rachel 115)
One compelling example concerns OPEC- the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. Since oil revenues are so vital for the economic development of these nations, they aim to bring stability and harmony to the oil market by adjusting their oil output to help ensure a balance between supply and demand. The stabilized output has helped to halt the problem of over-refining and over-utilization of oil energy for a long time. (OPEC) Obviously, the endeavor of only one or even several countries is not enough to solve the energy problems like this .The best and most efficient way is that the whole world conserves energy simultaneously and collectively. All these facts demonstrate that it is not unrealistic expect India to make a little concession to its stand for the phase-out unilaterally, which will make a big difference in the society. In conclusion, the environment crisis as well as the solution to it is international in scope; therefore, an international effort is indispensable to ensure the economic development at the same time. Finally, with the onset of industrialization, individual nation also have the responsibility to protect environment from further deterioration, and take action to ensure the sustainable economic development. In the final analysis, thinking about the issue in a different perspective, all nations are motivated to do this purely for their own benefit in the long run.

Works Cited
Mohan, Vishwa. “Warsaw green meet: India, US at odds over fate of climate-damaging gas.” The Times of India. 18 Nov. 2013. 3 Dec. 2013 .
Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, OPEC. Home page. 3 Dec. 2013 < http://www.eppo.go.th/inter/opec/OPEC-about.html >.