Environment
We have been at it for years. Coming to the end of this course, it is rather apt that environment should be a concluding topic to it. Environmentalists, climatologists, social activists, politicians, the media (just to name a few) have been discussing the environmental problem for years now ever since industrialization seem to have brought imminent side effects to the place we all live in. Environmental problems and pollutions are inevitably an effect of human activities. Global warming and climate change are the hazards brought about by the emission of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere caused by industrialization and car usage, for example. Pollution is also caused by the inability of the people to manage their waste problem, causing problem such as land pollution.
Essentially, I see the environmental problem arising out of 3 interlinked factors; economic, political and social. Nonetheless, ultimately, the overarching force that controls these factors is only one: the free market system.
The free market system has created a culture of mass consumerism. Having mass consumerism run the market system means increasing production of goods to be used by the society which demands those products. Industries are ran to meet these demands. From this demand-supply chain, we already see a few phenomena likely to happen. Firstly is the issue of mass production, which may lead to wastage arising out of needs versus wants. Consumers in the mass consumer culture today may want products which they may not necessarily need, and thus, may contribute to the wastage problem. Secondly is the running of these industries. While factories depend on the fuel power to run, they also emit carbon into the atmosphere, creating undesirable ozone effects.
Whilst we notice the role of economy and society in contributing to this effect, governments’ role in contributing to this phenomena should also be assessed. Economic forces have created capitalistic governments who prioritise economic profiteering above environmental hazards. While developed nations still contribute to global warming, they still want developing countries to adopt environmentally friendly approaches to development, setting a double-standards in approaching this issue. On top of that, it is also essentially a war between governments and NGOs as countries are not signing treaties after treaties made as a vow to reduce carbon emission from industries to generate economic profits.The Kyoto Protocol is a clear indication of governments’ commitment to the issue of global warming. While in 2008, 183 parties have ratified the protocol (source: http://unfccc.int/files/kyoto_protocol/status_of_ratification/application/pdf/kp_ratification.pdf) , it took years of convincing to ensure that governments are agreeable to the protocol. On top of that, there is no legally binding institution to monitor the commitment of countries to this protocol due to the issue of national sovereignty. Ultimately, it is an issue of individual countries’ integrity in commiting themselves to it.
At the end of it all, it all boils down to people in societies and governments to realise that ecological problems arise out of human activities and only us humans who have the means to fix this problem. Governments and societies have to work hand in hand to curb the issue of carbon emission into the atmosphere as well as waste management issues. In order for this to be possible, economic goals have to be subordinated to make way for the focus to be on solutions to solve this problem.
What governments need to realise that commitment to the terms of environmental solution practices does not mean that their economic objectives are being jeopardised. The equation is simple; the goals of the Kyoto Protocol is merely the preservation of the environment and NOT harping on the economic benefits. Thus, what governments need to realise is that as the free market economy operates in a culture of mass consumerism, which started the whole snowballing of effects, economies need to find alternative ways to operate and reap profits.
In my most earnest opinion, (In light of the recent change in American leadership), as countries often wait for one another to champion a cause, it all starts with an influential superpower to initiate the move. Obama, maybe it’s up to you now.
=)
