Environment - the peacemaker?

I wrote this essay as practice for the GRE. I thought it was pretty good so I'm publishing it here.

This was the original question:
"Our declining environment may bring the people of the world together as no politician, philosopher, or war ever could. Environmental problems are global in scope and respect no nation's boundaries. Therefore, people are faced with the choice of unity and cooperation on the one hand or disunity and a common tragedy on the other."

Throughout history, the human race has shown itself remarkably competent at one activity - killing one another. Whenever faced with a choice between peaceful resolution of conflict and violence, man has rarely passed up the opportunity to break out the guns. This has occured in the name of religion, race, natural resources such as fuel, and there is no reason to suppose it will be different for Earth.

There is no doubt that one of the greatest challenges that faces humans in the future is that of the environment. The triple causes of exploding human population, increasing consumption and neglect for the environment guarantee that we will face problems with food, fuel, water, climate change and pollution some time in the future. However, to expect that a trivial problem like extinction will force the human race to stop killing one another is idealistic.

The realisation that your neighbour's problems might be yours as well started with industrialisation. The accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Russia showed that national boundaries are a purely human construct and served no purpose to contain radioactive fallout. The problems with acid rain in Europe and other rapidly developing countries made nations sit up and pay attention to their neighbours. However, all these incidents had one thing in common: nations did little other than finger-pointing, blaming others, threats and sanctions, but no cooperation or offers to help. Even Singapore and Malaysia, which are annually plagued by smoke from forest fires in neighbouring Indonesia, have done nothing other than complain.

The best indication of how humans will respond to environmental problems can be seen in their handling of carbon emissions. Developed countries refuse to commit to the Kyoto Protocol because it would stifle their economic growth. Developing countries claim developed countries have had their chance to pollute and are now unfairly condemning others. Countries like the U.S.A. point the finger at China, the biggest polluter in the world, but conveniently fail to mention that, per capita, they are the biggest. Every country uses the measure of pollution that paints them in the best possible light - be it per capita, per area, per GDP, or any other arbitrary unit. Smaller countries refuse to participate since their pollution is negligible, they claim.

Besides competition, the other reason for the failure of these treaties is pride. Every country wants to be the saviour of the world and come up with their own solution, nobody wants to listen to someone else. At this rate, we will have reinvented the wheel dozens of times, starting from the beginning each time, instead of building on others' progress.

There have been minor successes, such as the elimination of CFCs. Found to be harmful to the environment, they have been gradually phased out and can hardly be found today. Perhaps there is hope after all. Today, the strongest force in this conflict is public perception. It is currently trendy to be environmentally friendly. Whether people are really environmentally conscious or just following trends, the net result is pressure on companies and governments to clean up after themselves. This has already shown effects in political elections, with parties remembering to make environmental promises as well.